NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Why John?

Since there's been so much discussion here lately regarding the respective roles of Patsy and John in both the 911 call and the crime itself, I've decided to add a post summarizing the logic behind my conviction that John was solely responsible for both the death of his daughter and the writing of the note, and that Patsy must have made the call in all innocence.

First, let's dispose of the intruder theory. I'll do this as quickly and simply as possible, though much more info is available on this matter in both the blog and my book. A pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. Someone entering the house with the intent to kidnap would have prepared a note in advance. Someone deciding to kidnap while already inside the house, such as a burglar, would not have taken the time, trouble and risk to pen such a long and detailed note, dotting every i and crossing every t, adhering closely to the margin, etc. Someone attempting to frame Patsy or John would not have written the note in his own hand (disguised or not), but attempted a forgery. None of the above are assumptions, by the way. All are logical inferences based on the nature of the note itself and the fact that the note was penned on paper torn from a notepad found in the Ramsey home.

We are thus left with either Patsy or John (or both) as writer(s) of the note. (It was not written by a 9 year old.) As I see it, the key fact in this respect is that Patsy is the one who called the police, not John. Before getting into a discussion of who wanted the call made or whether John could have prevented Patsy from making the call, etc., it's important to pay attention to one key point: if both were in it together, that call would not have been made at that time, while the body was still in the house.

Why do I feel so confident this must be the case? Because the note is very clearly an attempt to stage a kidnapping. This is so obvious, I'm almost embarrassed to mention it. If the Ramseys simply wanted to provide the police with a note demonstrating the presence of an intruder they would have written a completely different sort of note, not a ransom note. Again, this seems so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning, but to many the difference doesn't seem to matter. Of course it matters. A ransom note is either genuine or phony. If the victim is actually missing from the house, then the note might well be genuine. But if the dead body of the victim is found in the house, as was JonBenet's body, then the note is almost certainly phony -- an attempt at staging that somehow went wrong. And the most likely suspects become those present in the house when the murder occurred. Why would the Ramseys want to cast suspicion on themselves by handing a clearly phony ransom note to the police? And if Patsy wrote it, why would she want to hand them evidence that might well be used against her?

Based on the above considerations it seems clear that the call would not have been made if both were in it together -- meaning that one must be guilty and the other innocent. The guilty party would have killed JonBenet and written the note, the innocent party would have been unaware of what really happened and would have taken the note at face value, as evidence that JonBenet had been kidnapped. The fact that the call was made by Patsy and not John then takes on a significance that no one investigating the case has ever appreciated, so far as we can tell, since both Ramseys have consistently been treated in tandem, as a single unit joined at the hip.

We must now consider what happened prior to the call and whose decision it was to make it. As seems clear, to me at least, one of them, the innocent party, wanted that call made and the other, the guilty party, did not. According to John's initial statement, during their first CNN interview, he told Patsy to make the call. And that became the official version, as elaborated in their book, The Death of Innocence. However, an alternative version of what happened can be found in a documentary by Michael Tracy and David Mills, produced for A&E. In the transcript of the full-length documentary (this does not appear in a shorter version), we find the following:

Narrator: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."

This completely contradicts the version of what happened according to their book, where John is on his hands and knees reading the note, with Patsy beside him, right next to the telephone when she asks him what to do and he tells her to call the police.

We find still another version in Darnay Hoffman's 2001 deposition of Patsy as part of the Chris Wolf lawsuit. (43 minutes and 40 seconds into Part 4: https://youtu.be/GyllbtpF_sU?t=43m40s -- unfortunately the audio is out of sync):

Darnay: Whose decision was it to call the police when you found the ransom note?

Patsy: John and I [hesitates] we just said "what'll we do -- call the police." I don't know whether it was specifically one decision or the other."

Yet another contradiction, as the description provided in their book specifically states that it was John who told Patsy to make the call.

Why would different versions exist if they were accurately reporting what happened? And why would they have been motivated to hide the truth? In any case, we cannot simply accept at face value John's assertion that he wanted that call made and told Patsy to make it. To determine whose idea it was we need to dig more deeply into the evidence and the psychology of the situation.

Let's first assume that Patsy is the one who killed her daughter and wrote the note, without John's knowledge. The warnings in the note would have been intended to frighten John into not calling the police, thus giving her time to get rid of the body. But when could she have done that? One might assume that John's trip to the bank, to collect the ransom, would have given her that opportunity. However, any attempt to dump the body during banking hours, in broad daylight, would have been awfully risky. Her car could have been spotted near the site where the body would eventually be found; she might have been seen carrying the body out of her trunk and into the woods; John could have returned early and wondered where she'd gone; and what about Burke, what would she have done with him? Other than that, I see no opportunity for her to remove the body without John's knowledge. Thus, as it seems, the note would have done nothing for her because sooner or later the police would have to be called in and they'd have found the body in the house. NOT an effective way to stage a kidnapping.

Moreover, if Patsy had written the note, she would certainly have balked if and when John told her to call 911. She'd have reminded him of the warnings in the note, and made it clear that calling the police was too dangerous. And if, at that point, John insisted that the police be called regardless, I see no need to force Patsy to call, when he could so easily have lifted the receiver and called 911 himself.

Turning now to John, what stands out to me is how well that particular note could have worked for him had the call not been made. I won't go into detail as I've already covered that ground very thoroughly on this blog, particularly here. (A more complete scenario can be found in Chapter Three of my book). If in fact John wrote the note, there is no way he'd have told Patsy to call 911, knowing full well that the body was lying there in the basement waiting to be discovered when the police arrived. He would almost certainly have pointed to all the dire threats in the note, insisting that the police not be called or the "kidnappers" would behead their beloved child. The need to buy time before the police are called is, in fact, one of the main reasons for the note. As I've written, his plan would have been to dump the body the following night, under the pretense that he was delivering the ransom. Only after he'd gotten rid of the body, and all the other evidence, would he have wanted the police called in.

In the face of all the above considerations, the fact that Patsy is the one who made the call looms large. It's not easy to understand why she would have wanted to call the police in the face of all the threats in the note, and against her husband's will. Perhaps she was simply in a panic and, as she herself has attested, acted spontaneously, without thinking. Perhaps John was acting strangely and she simply wanted someone else there with her at that time, for her own protection. But if she were in fact the one who wrote that note, there is no way she would have meekly consented to call the police just because John asked her to. And I see no reason why John would have insisted when he could so easily have made the call himself.

Some have assumed that a guilty John would not have permitted Patsy to make the call, that he would physically have restrained her. But he would literally have needed to sit on her all morning to prevent her from calling if that's what she'd decided she must do. There was a phone on every floor and she could easily have found a way to call despite all his efforts.

One more question remains. If Patsy made the call herself, on her own volition, and against John's will, why would she have consented to the version in the book, where she makes the call at John's request? This is indeed a subtle and complex question that can't be treated in a few words. I refer readers to the blog post titled White Lies, for a thorough analysis of the psychology behind their conflicting testimonies.

Once we recognize that "the Ramseys" are a fiction, that John and Patsy are two different people, with two different sets of motives, and, more important, once we recognize that one must be innocent and the other guilty -- then many other aspects of the crime come into play. Who is more likely to have sexually assaulted the victim? Who is more likely to be responsible for the signs of chronic sexual abuse? Who is more likely to have inflicted a blow that "could have felled a 300 pound man"? Who is more likely to have devised the intricately knotted "garotte" that strangled the victim? Who is more likely to have broken the basement window to stage an intruder break-in -- and then attempted a feeble alibi by concocting a tall tale about breaking in months earlier? Who was responsible for lawyering up from the first day onward? Who refused to cooperate with the police while his wife was in a drug-induced stupor?

Finally, as for the decision on the part of a team of handwriting "experts" to rule John out as writer of the note, this too has been covered in depth on this blog and in my book. To save space here, I'll simply refer you to the opinion of John's favorite lawyer, Lin Wood, as encapsulated by Judge Carnes in her summation of the Wolf case:

Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review.

------------------------------------------------------
One thing I'd like to add, in response to some of the skeptics reading here. While I feel sure I've solved this case, I could be wrong. I might have missed something essential, some facts may have escaped my attention, my logic could be flawed, and there may, after all, be aspects of this case that are beyond any attempts to deal logically with what happened. As I make a point of stating in my book, any suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, during a trial in which he or she is represented by council.

Nevertheless, while none of us, including me, can be sure our theory of the case is correct, I do believe, as demonstrated throughout this blog, there is more than enough evidence to bring John Ramsey to trial for the murder of his daughter on the basis of probable cause. If in fact Patsy is the guilty party, or even Burke, or possibly an intruder (however unlikely) John's lawyers will have ample opportunity to make a case for his innocence, if only on the basis of reasonable doubt. Ultimately it will be up to a jury to decide, no question. However: I see no excuse for allowing this case to linger any longer without a trial, as the evidence for probable cause is simply overwhelming and cannot easily be dismissed.

254 comments:

Thank you, Doc. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people, including investigators, cannot look at Patsy and John as separate people and consider the possibility that one did not know what the other was doing during the middle of that fateful night.

If incest was the reason for the murder, we all have to keep in mind that family members who molest children manage to silence them for long periods of time. We also have to accept that incest can start at any time in a perp's life. There are grandfathers who molest granddaughters, even though they never touched a daughter, niece, cousin, etc. John might not look like a child molester, but many molesters are upstanding citizens. The evidence of chronic sexual abuse is key. I hope the evidence of that is strong enough to provide motive and help convict JR of his deed.

Finally, John's behavior since the death of JBR, and the things he has written, smack of narcissism to me. He talks about himself, his grief, his "pain," way more than he talks about Patsy's feelings or the life cut short of a promising little girl. He never says he misses JBR and wants her back. He simply does not sound like a grieving father at all. He doesn't even speak about poor Burke having lost his only sibling and how hard the loss was on him. All that man cares about is himself. Yet folks will fantasize all day long about the evil mother Patsy, when nothing she ever did or said would lead one to conclude she had the motive or propensity to murder her child and stage an elaborate coverup. -LE

As I see it, the problem with your theory is that you fail to acknowledge that it is possible they can't remember exactly who decided to call the police. If it were a genuinely horrific situation where someone kidnapped your kid and threatened to behead her, I can certainly comprehend not exactly remembering a jointly made decision to call the police.

To be clear, I am a fan of it being an inside job, however I can absolutely fathom events transpiring so quickly and the state of panic being such that neither parent remembers precisely who said what in the four seconds it took to decide to call the police.

It seems desperate to use the changing memories of these four seconds as proof Patsy wasn't involved. I do, however, think there is some merit to the possibility JR and only JR did it. That would explain so many of the reactions by both parents on that morning.

I think you have it wrong though that the motive was JBR revealing the abuse. They had just come from a party where it would have been a catastrophic event to have her reveal abuse among so many people and they were going away with family only, which is a far less critical time to worry about revealing abuse. I would think it far more likely it was some event that happened that night which instigated the murder.

"If it were a genuinely horrific situation where someone kidnapped your kid and threatened to behead her, I can certainly comprehend not exactly remembering a jointly made decision to call the police."

Your point is well taken and you could be right. Nevertheless, whether you are right and they can't recall, or I am right and they deliberately lied, the fact remains that we have no reason to accept on its face the common belief that John was the one who told Patsy to call the police. And, as I've argued, that call would not have been made if they were both involved, so it's extremely unlikely that this was a jointly made decision, as you assume.

As far as motive is concerned, we have no way of knowing when John made the decision to kill JonBenet. He could have planned it ahead of time, and taken his chances at the party. Or he could have made it later that night,on the spur of the moment, based on something JonBenet said. His main concern might have been his fear that she might want to confide in her half sister, Melinda, whom she would be spending time with in the next few days. We may never know for sure.

Frank, it makes sense, if they are both distraught parents, both believing their child has been kidnapped, to be panicked, confused, and forget. However, we're going on the premise that one or both of them knew that JBR was not kidnapped. Going with the idea that only one of them knew: that person was very vested in not having the police come now. That person would have been the one to object to the police being called. If that person was John, he may have in fact tried to stop Patsy and failed. I have even theorized that Burke heard them having a heated discussion, and picked up the phone to dial himself. The phone was snatched from his hand and Patsy started talking, even though even she herself was not sure that calling (given the warnings in the note) was the right thing. It may be why some think John said to Burke "we're not talking to you." Anyway, this is just a theory.

As far as why John picked that night to do this, Doc has given some thoughts on this, so I suggest you go back and read. I personally think John had been thinking about when to deal with JBR, and finally realized that Patsy might be on to something and decided he better do it before the trip -- and must have felt a fake kidnapping was the most believable way to get rid of her. LE

So if Patsy was on to something about JB being sexually abused by John then that means after the autopsy was done and JB and she has found out J.B. had been sexually assaulted and it was chronic than she would have had no choice but to more than suspect John of killing J.B. right from the beginning.

Yes, that's my personal feeling -- I don't think Doc would agree with me on this. I do think she was intimidated, gaslit, and maybe even totally afraid to accuse him. Remember, the police, the media, everyone was attacking her. I think she carried her concerns to her grave out of fear, yes. She knew the ovarian cancer remission did not mean she was cured, and knew she would need his money for her healthcare and that she needed to stay strong for Burke. That's just my opinion. Regardless of what she knew, John had to have known he would be found out for what he was doing to JBR.

I respect that opinion and find it much more plausible then she never had a clue because I personally find her not knowing to be impossible. I do disagree though that she remains quiet. If it were an accident then I find that possible but we are talking about the brutal rape and murder of her daughter and then having to sleep next to that person every night. I would think someone in that position would be wondering if they would be the next 1 to be killed so even if they decided to remain quiet an immediate seperation and distance put between her and John would seem inevitable.

Many a woman have stayed silent over suspicions about their husband -- look at Jerry Sandusky's wife. He raped boys in their own home...multiple incidents and she says she never knew or suspected anything? I think the push the suspicions aside and go into denial for preservation of their own security. Patsy could have come to the following conclusion: "I cannot prove he was doing this. They ruled out his handwriting. They are focused on me. In spite of what I suspect, my husband is defending me and paying for my lawyers. If he did do this, I can't believe he really meant to hurt her...this was a slip up and he is sorry and would never do it again. I'll see to it that he doesn't. I'm going to die, and he's going to have to pay for my funeral. I'll be with JB again and then I'll know for sure. I need someone to care for Burke when I'm gone though. I guess I will never know what his involvement was until I get to heaven. I will pray that I am wrong."

No one was staging anything nor attempting to get rid of JBs body nor is that evidence clear in any way. This has been stated many times by many people but if either of them was trying to dump the body it would have been done in the early morning hours (1-6am) right after JB's death as the timing was perfect as was having the time do it. Basically you are saying that John kills her and then passes up the wee hours of the morning to dump the body when he knows 1) that everyone is in a deep sleep since because he just killed and raped JB and no one heard a thing in favor of writing a ransom note and hiding the body in hopes that 911 does not get called in the meantime and that the body does not get found or smelt while hoping that he can get everyone out of the house to dump the body in the daytime ? That makes sense to you ???? JB's body would not have been redressed either. These are facts and 1s that you seem to just ignore at convenience. You can not be in the suspects mind to know what they were thinking, writing the/a ransom note may have come from a movie or may have been the first thing that just popped into the killer's mind while dumping their daughters body never did. Im sorry but saying this is so obvious while completely ignoring contradictory facts does not make it so. You have to assume about whose idea the 911 was call just to get to the contradictory facts. C.J.

Attempting to dump the body on the night of the murder would have been extremely risky. Patsy or Burke might have been awakened by the sound of the car starting or the garage door opening. A neighbor might have spotted his car leaving the house. And if anyone spotted his car in the vicinity of the place where the body would eventually be found, his goose would have been cooked.

In any case, the 2 1/2 page ransom note is a fact, it exists, it's been copied zillions of times, we know it was written and unless you want to assume an intruder wrote it, it must have been written by someone living in that house. If John and/or Patsy had decided that dumping the body that night was the best option, then that's what they would have done. Obviously, they didn't.

The note exists, it's a huge part of the puzzle, and it can't simply be ignored because you prefer to believe dumping the body on the night of the crime was a better option.

As far as redressing the body is concerned, my theory is that the body must have been redressed after the police were called, not before. If the police had not been called, there would have been no need to redress her.

I find it difficult to see the point you are making. Do you think an intruder did it? If not, then nothing you say makes much sense.

So dumping the body at 3am is extremely risky but writing a note, hiding the body in the house while it is decomposing and Patsy would be looking for J.B, having Patsy NOT call 911, getting rid of everyone in the house and dumping the body in the daytime where it is much easier to identify the car and person who did it is not clearly a whole lot more risky ? Sorry but I am not understanding the logic here . C.J.

I am forced to follow the evidence but apparently you are not. The body was NOT dumped at 3 AM. A note WAS written. The body WAS hidden in the house. And no, Patsy didn't look for it -- because the note convinced her that her daughter had been kidnapped. Getting Burke and Patsy out of the house "for their own safety" would not have been difficult, as the "kidnappers" clearly designated John as the person they wanted to deal with. And no, the body would not have been dumped in the daytime, but on the following night, under cover of darkness. And if John's car had been identified, he would have said he was only delivering the ransom.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? And if you can't accept the scenario I've proposed, then by all means propose one of your own.

"As far as redressing the body is concerned, my theory is that the body must have been redressed after the police were called, not before. If the police had not been called, there would have been no need to redress her."

I know another person has brought this up on the site before, and I realize this detail isn't inconsistent with your theory, but I think you may want to reconsider the timeline for the redressing (if there was a redressing).

Her longjohns and underwear were both urine stained in the anterior crotch and leg areas (autopsy notes). Kolar further explained that there was a urine stain on the floor just outside the wine cellar, and with other evidence, came to the conclusion (as did most investigators) that she was positioned facing toward the floor when she was killed. Morbidly, at the time of death her bladder let go.

This was gone over again on the AMA with Kolar.

The evidence is consistent with the panties and longjohns being worn at the time of death. So unless the strangulation took place after the 911 call, I don't believe the evidence indicates that John or anyone else "redressed" her after her death.

While her place of death is a little besides the point, and I don't think the panties being a different size indicates anything in any specific direction, I thought you might want to reconsider this detail.

As you say, this issue has been raised before. And also, as you say, it's not essential to the case I've been making that her attacker redressed her. Nevertheless, according to the medical examiner, who arrived very late and was as a result unable to accurately establish time of death, there was a lot of uncertainty in that regard and he refused to speculate in his report. According to one estimate "the time of death was between 10:00 PM on December 25 and 6:00 AM." http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/jonbenet-ramsey/http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The%20Body#TimeofDeath

As there was a considerable lapse of time, apparently, between the head blow and the strangulation -- and the strangulation is what killed her -- then it's possible the strangulation occurred after 911 was called. That possibility seems remote, but can't be ruled out, apparently.

Also the autopsy report mentions urine stains but says nothing about their extent. Her panties might have been soaked in urine, or there might only have been a few isolated stains that could have been transferred to the new panties from remnants of urine still on the body.

I'm not going to insist on any of this, but I do think it a mistake to rule out redressing simply on the basis of urine stains that might or might not have been relevant. I do find it difficult to accept that this very fastidious child would have redressed herself in panties far too large to be comfortable. So I still tend to favor the notion that she was redressed by her attacker.

The "redressing" would have been after the sexual assault, not necessarily after her death. She had to have been undressed, at least partially, to be assaulted. The fact that she has on fresh size 12 panties means she was redressed (assuming she was not wearing them prior to the assault)

This is one of the cases where I cannot do anything else but agree with the police. And the depo video only strengthens my stance.

What baffles me in this video is how they, as parents, can speak about what happened to their little girl without even the slightest sign of being distressed. Some of the questions in the video go in to very specific detail about how their daughter was found and what they (the parents) did, yet not the slightest sign of distress or grief is seen on their faces. At more than 1 point in the video Patsy is smiling as details of her dead daughter's murder are being discussed.

If this was my daughter and someone would ask me, like in the video, to re-live those very specific moments I'd found my daughter dead and bound, I'd have to fight tears and a lump in my throat at the very very least. No matter how many years after the fact and no matter how many times I'd have told the story before in court, to reporters or anyone else, it would be extremely hard to think about the time I found my daughter bound and murdered.

JonBenét's father and mother show no sign of this at all and whether innocent or guilty; it comes off as extremely cold to me and there is something every wrong going on here . Bonepriest

John Ramsey shakes his head no when says yes, and yes when he says no. I actually thought Patsy seemed way more open and honest on those Darnay Hoffman videos. She didn't speak in a formal, stilted manner the way her husband did. He seemed to have to think about every answer.

If you're referring to the video of the interview with Darnay Hoffmann, that took place some years after the murder. If you watch earlier videos of Patsy being interviewed you'll see how upset she was. Just after the discovery of the body, Patsy went into an almost catatonic state and needed to be heavily medicated for weeks thereafter.

Always looking for new material and expert analysis to read on this case I ran across these the other day which I found to be very very interesting. Doc will surely try and discount this author's expertise among other things however ... http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/02/understanding-analysis-of-911-call-by.html?m=1

I read this "statement analysis" or something similar some time ago and my reaction is essentially the same as my reaction to the "statement analysis" of the ransom note, probably by the same person. This is pseudo science. Nothing in either analysis is based on anything remotely scientific, no objective standards are applied, only personal opinions, and there are no references to actual research, as published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Nor is there any attempt at establishing a control by comparing Patsy's statements with those of others, who might or might not be known to be either honest or deceptive.

The author offers a list of what is to be expected from a mother reporting a missing child, but no authority is provided, scientific or otherwise, for anything on that list. Literally every "standard" is based only on what the author deems appropriate, which is scientifically meaningless and would never be accepted in any court of law. Obviously the author has already singled out Patsy as the guilty party, so in his/her view whatever she says must be an act.

If it were that easy to spot fraud there would no longer be any need for detectives, lawyers, judges or juries. We'd just run the suspects' statements through the sieve, separating truth from falsehood and that would be it. Polygraphs are far more scientific than this sort of thing and not even they are admissible in court. Sorting truth from lies, on any basis, is not that easy, and in many cases may be impossible. Which is why legal investigations focus on facts and evidence, not personal opinions.

While I agree that it may not be usable as evidence I certainly felt before I read this that PR's words and behavior were very obvious in distancing herself from J.B. Apparently not to everyone. We have all lied before and there are definitely some common characteristics that go along with it whether it is scientific or evidence in court or not. Some more common and obvious than others. The list of things that are not evidence yet show guilt is very long and large. My opinion is that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to bring a case against P.R. if she were alive. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you have made up your mind and will see nothing else no matter how obvious it is. I would think you could only dismiss so much but maybe not.

As someone who has followed this case closely, practically from the start, I can tell you that the people who find Patsy's statements and manner suspicious are those already convinced of her guilt. Those with no reason to suspect her see her basically as a grieving mother. I for one see nothing in her demeanor or her words that strikes me as suspicious.

Of course, both sides are influenced by their view of the case generally and I feel sure that goes for me as well. But that's the problem isn't it? One can't easily separate one's preconceptions from one's perceptions. I might agree or disagree with your take on Patsy or John or anyone else, but I can't base my analysis of the case on such observations, as it's too difficult to eliminate bias, on either side.

I knew you wouldnt see the obvious distancing Doc and guilt in her words. As if it is not obvious and odd that she wont say JBs name and that she us worried about establishing her alibi more than where her child is. You are no different in the bias area as you will not accept ANY evidence from any expert or anywhere else regardless of obviousness if it goes against your theory. I have to disagree with you about everyone being biased only because I am not PDI, JDI, or BDI. I am a full believer that BOTH parents were without a doubt involved in the cover up. As far as who committed the murder it is a total crapshoot depending on ones perception.

I have no problem admitting I could be biased in my assessment of Patsy's words and behavior. Which is why they play no role in my analysis of the case. And by the way, I fail to see any obvious signs of deception in John's public statements either, even though I feel sure he's lying through his teeth.

My approach to the case is based, as I've said many times, on the facts, and logical inferences based directly on those facts. I don't set much store on amateurish efforts to spot people lying simply by observing their behavior and their wording, no. The most notorious criminals have lied blatantly and had many supporters who felt sure they must be innocent. Witness Ted Bundy, who denied his guilt until the very end, when, to the surprise of his many supporters, he confessed.

If you think think you have some magical ability to determine guilt simply by watching someone on TV or listening to a recording, then by all means offer your services to the authorities, I'm sure they'd be interested. But you'd have to prove yourself first.

If you read what I've written above you'll see my reasons for rejecting the notion that John and Patsy were in this together. And if you want to challenge my facts or my logic, fine, I'll be happy to debate that with you. But please don't waste my time by claiming you know what's what simply by listening to Patsy's 911 call or reading some amateurish "content analysis" of the ransom note. Facts and logic are what are expected in a court of law. Mind reading won't cut it.

Mind reading ? When an investigator sits down with a suspect and interrogates them what are they looking for ? Lies, changing of stories, alibi setting , distancing. They are not "mind readers" yet catch suspects on a regular basis. Same exact thing here.

An interrogation is a completely different matter, because the suspect is expected to answer hard questions in a straightforward and convincing manner. If the suspect hems and haws, can't recall this and can't recall that, if his answers are evasive and/or contradictory, then yes, those could be signs of deception. We see plenty of them in John's responses to his police interviews in both 1997 and 1998.

Nevertheless, while evasive or contradictory responses can give investigators valuable clues as to what might actually have happened (or not happened), they are rarely sufficient from a legal standpoint. What the interrogators really need is a confession, not just signs of possible deception. And in many cases, by jumping to conclusions, they can wind up with a false confession from an innocent person.

I am not trying to make them sufficient from a legal standpoint. Nothing will ever happen legally with this case unfortunately, so this all we have I am only trying to show of Patsy's knowledge and involvement to you and anyone who thinks that she was not involved. I surely am not disagreeing with you on John's involvement. You have done a great job with this blog even if we have differing opinions on Patsy being involved and either way I enjoy the friendly debate.

I've been reading your blog for a while now, and I agree with your theory. After reading a ton about the case I have two observations:

Do you think that maybe John wrote 'beheading' on purpose because he was planning on going through with it to hide the blow to the head and/or the strangulation?

Also, Patsy says that she only read the first sentences of the ransom note and then quickly called the police, and then she claims that during the call, John was examining the note. But, in the 911 call we can hear her say something like: 'It says SBTC, help!', and that is the last part of the note. How does she know that if she only skimmed through the first page, as she claims? She must have had the note in her hand, which indicates that John was doing something else during the call.

I would really like to know what you think about this. And thank you for writing so many amazing posts about this case!-A

I think the primary purpose of the word "beheaded" was to instill shock and awe in the child's mother. He was hoping this phrase would terrify Patsy so completely that she'd be willing to follow the "kidnappers" directions "to the letter," as the note states.

But you may have a point, because it's always possible that he'd have beheaded JonBenet after dumping her body, assuming he'd been able to carry out his plan. But I don't think it would have been possible to cover up the head blow or the strangulation. The purpose would have been to link the actual murder with the phony "ransom note," implying that it was the parents' negligence that caused her death.

That's just an assumption of course, since we have no idea what John would or would not have done at that point.

With regard to the question of how much of the note Patsy read, I must admit I can't say for sure. We really have no idea what actually went on between them prior to that call.

We do know they both lied about it, because conflicting versions of what happened were presented by each of them at different times. And as I've argued we have no reason to accept the story that John told her to make that call -- I feel sure he would have been against it. But as for the rest, I can't say. She might have read a few lines, panicked and ran to make the call before John had a chance to stop her -- and then skipped to the end when asked about the signature. Or they might both have read it and then argued about what to do. We just have no way of knowing and I'm not sure what to think.

Fascinating blog Doc. I have to say for what it's worth this anonymous internet user agrees with your findings completely. I used to be in the BDI camp but that theory was always missing "something" for me. I have to wonder if Burke himself suspects his dad? He's full grown now and if I suspected my father did that to my sister we would be having a conversation that would probably involve a blowtorch and a pair of pliers.

I have been interested in this case since day 1 and just ran into this blog as I have been reading it most of the day. Fascinating in-depth detailed site with very smart and knowledgable posters here. Back in 96 before most of the evidence came out I had thought JDI for sure. Due to reading and seeing Lou Smits documentary I was convinced IDI. I then switched to PDI after finding out Smit had not a clue. Then after reading Kolar's book I was convinced BDI. After reading some of this blog I can see no one here seems to think BDI is possible. My question for Doc is why do you think BDI is so impossible? It seems to me that it is the only way that all parts of this tragedy line up and make complete sense would be an accident or BDI and then a cover up. Jay

My method involves concentrating on the facts and logical inferences drawn from the facts. On this basis, I believe I can demonstrate that John Ramsey is the one who wrote the note and that Patsy Ramsey is completely innocent. However, strictly speaking, I cannot rule out the possibility that Burke might have killed his sister with his father covering for him, because there is no factual evidence that definitively supports or falsifies such a theory.

Nevertheless, I do feel very strongly that, when we consider all the facts, all the evidence, and apply simple common sense, John Ramsey emerges as a far more likely murder suspect than his frail, 9 year old son. If we see evidence that a female child has been bludgeoned, sexually assaulted, and strangled with an intricately knotted garotte-type device, it seems to me that the obvious suspect is going to be the father, not the 9 year old brother.

Now if the father is put on trial and wants to argue that his son is actually the murderer, he would have ample opportunity to do that. I doubt such a plea would go over with a jury, but he'd be free to make such an argument if he wished. To me, such a theory makes little sense -- and the fact that Burke cannot be absolutely ruled out should not stand in the way of an indictment of John, who is by far the most likely to have done all that was done to this poor innocent child.

Kolar felt BDI was a logical way out of a very deep dilemma because that theory "explained" why the parents, whom he assumes ahead of time to be innocent, would work together to stage a kidnapping to cover for a murder. He refuses to even consider the possibility that the sexual assault, murder and strangulation could have been perpetrated by John, simply because he considers him "a good Christian." So naturally he is forced to look elsewhere and since he can't accept any intruder theory and he can't accept that Patsy could have done it, he had no choice but to focus on the least likely suspect of them all: Burke.

Thank you for your insight. I have always thought of this crime in 2 parts, the staging and the murder. The evidence is so scrambled because of the staging, the botched job by law enforcement and Ramsey's legal team that what we do have seems to point in every direction. I too would love to see put on the stand. He could still possibly be charged with obstruction of justice unless the statute of limitations has run out ? Jay

The statute of limitations on obstruction of justice, as James Kolar reminds us, has in fact run out. But as I see it, so much of the evidence points to John and John alone that there is no longer any reason to delay prosecuting him for first degree murder, based on probable cause.

Burke was never regarded as a suspect as there is no evidence linking him to the crime -- only some remote and unlikely possibilities, as unearthed by Kolar and, as far as I can tell, endorsed by no one else in law enforcement. It seems very clear to me that John wrote the note and concocted the absurd window story to cover his own ass and no one else's. And if he might want to argue otherwise, he'll have every opportunity to do so by taking the witness stand and testifying under oath.

I have recently read that the Ramseys admitted before the Grand Jury testimony that Burke was awake before the 911 call. Does anyone find it that they lied about Burke being asleep all morning? I would think that lying about where your other child is and having him pretend to be asleep would be 1 of the last things someone would worry about in that stressful scenario. Jay

First of all: John and Patsy never testified before the GJ, believe it or not. Secondly, Burke apparently testified to someone that he'd been faking and was really awake while pretending to be asleep. If he was faking then I don't think we can say the Ramseys lied, as they would not have known. At some later point they learned about his pretending to be asleep and acknowledged that. I see no deception on that score.

I can not figure out why John would lie about breaking that window. It makes no sense. If he was unstaging because he was worried about being caught then he got very lucky. You think he would have been worried that they could tell by the broken edges when it was broken.

Yes, John got very lucky. If anything makes this case unique, it's the extraordinary luck of the guilty party, who lucked out in so many ways. He had to lie about breaking the window earlier because it looked so much like staging, and he'd probably have been arrested on the spot if he hadn't managed to explain it away.

It looks to me like the broken edges must have been clean or they wouldn't have questioned him about that window so intensely and on two different occasions. Nevertheless, the story worked for him since it functioned as the perfect misdirection. Since the investigators lacked the imagination to realize that his story was actually an alibi, they chose to believe him. After all, "if he'd staged a breakin why would he have wanted to undo the effect of his staging by telling such a story?" It seems never to have occurred to them that he'd been counting on Patsy NOT calling the police, which would have given him a full 24 hours to complete his window staging.

It is almost comical that anyone, police included, would assume that this crime had been well-thought out and executed according to the perp's plan. This crime was obviously an act of an amateur. It seems easy to see that this was a plan gone badly, and thus the staging was not complete and no intruder ever did exit stage right. Once you see it as an inside job, a faked kidnapping, why is is so hard to realize there was a reason the fake kidnapping was not fully executed? Those Boulder investigators are thick skulled!

It is pretty obvious that it is amateurish. My question was only of what benefit was for John to unstage the window because it makes no sense. The glass was freshly broken and 1 would think the police would be able to see the clean edges or test. After I thought about it did not John tell Linda Arndt that there was a broken window in the basement? Then later the same day I believe he was questioned and that is when he said he had broken the window prior. I am sure Patsy was questioned the same day (the 26th) about the window as well? Which would mean he would have to collate his story with Patsy immediately about that window correct ? Or was Patsy questioned about the window for the first time months later?

No, John told no one about the broken window until he and Fleet went down there just before he discovered the body. Only when being questioned months later did he reveal that he'd been down there that morning -- and found the window open -- and then shut it. When asked if he'd told anyone, he "could not recall." It was only years later, when being interviewed by Katy Couric, that he claimed he'd told Arndt about finding the open window. Which was a huge fib. If he'd told her, she'd have gone down there to check and her report would have been very different, as this would have been seen as an important clue.

And no, I feel sure Patsy wasn't questioned about it at that time, because the first person he mentioned it to was White, shortly before he found the body -- and from then on Patsy was too distraught to be questioned about anything.

As for the freshly broken glass, you're right, that probably would have weighed on John's mind. But at that point he really had no choice but to come up with some explanation for the broken window. This was far from the perfect crime. John got lucky and they bought his story anyhow. If this was not the most incompetently investigated case in the history of crime, he'd have been arrested on the spot and we wouldn't be discussing it now.

If they did not ask Patsy until later that is beyond incompetence. I had read and always thought that he told Arndt that morning. Thus meaning 2 different stories and caught in a lie immediately. I am surprised that we havent heard Arndt rebuke his claim of telling her the window was broken. Other than her 1 interview we have never really heard much from Arndt. That does make more sense now. Other than if it were not for him trying to unstage no one would have had a clue about the window and we might be talking about an intruder right now.

They didn't ask Patsy until months later because John got his lawyers to come up with one excuse after another for delaying a police interview. First, it was because she was too upset, then because the police were "out to get" them. Legally, the Ramseys could not be forced to answer questions if they didn't want to.

It seems clear to me that John didn't want them to question Patsy about certain things, such as the 911 call and the window, until he'd had a chance to work on her and make sure they'd be on the same page with their answers.

John's story about telling Arndt about the window was aired on the Today show in 2000. I'm not sure why she never responded, but she'd been treated badly by the BPD leadership and may have deliberately disconnected herself from the case by then. For a comparison between what he told the police and what he told Couric, see the following: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-window.html

I just have a question ... why add that the kidnappers were gunna call . Why not just write down a fake place to meet? How was he going to have someone call while pr was there.note stated a specific time they were going to call. It just seemed easier because it had to been in his mind that after he returned home without jb patsy would of called 911 . Police would of tryed to " trace this call " or its not like he could of lied to pr saying they called . That would be to risky . How would he get jb body out of the house if they " kidnappers dont call " how would he know their " instructions" it never said go to the bank then go back home . The call was going to provide what jr was supposed to do to get her back.

The kidnapper's call was a nice touch. Once John got Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with friends, "for their own safety," he could have called his house from a phone booth near the bank. The answering machine would have picked up the call, but of course there would be no message. He'd just wait a few minutes and hang up. The call would then have been registered with the phone company -- the contents of such calls are never recorded.

Alternatively, if he couldn't get Patsy and Burke out of the house, he could have called Patsy, disguising his voice, and given her the instructions.

It's all pretty speculative, and he could have had some other plan in mind. For instance, he could have claimed the "kidnappers" changed their mind and placed a note in the mail slot instead of calling. He could then have said they wanted their note returned along with the ransom.

What's important to understand is that the "ransom note" put John in charge of the entire situation and he could easily have improvised if necessary.

The suit case is interesting. So convent it was left out right by the broken window . The note stated to bring an attaché. Maybe jr thought that looked suspecious . Brought attention to the window to prove a point as to how the suspect could of " left" the suitcase there.

Thats probably why the story he tells doesnt make sense . Wasnt prepared for pr to call 911 had the suitcase out to prepare the staging forgot about it after pr abruptly called 911 didnt think about it untill he went down there with fw . Fw stated that looked suspicious. Tryed to make it seem like an intruder used it as a prop to get out the window . To explain why it was down there. But realized the window wouldnt be belieable .

Disguising his voice to Patsy? That is beyond risky and would be twice as stupid as leaving a R.N. Maybe the attache in the RN was going to be the suitcase by the window ? Possibly John was going to use that suitcase as the attache case in the R.N. and get J.B.s body out of the house in it with everyone home ? I have read before that it was thought that someone tried to put her body in that suitcase, not sure if that is true or not ?

It's not that hard to disguise your voice if you use a foreign accent and pitch it higher or lower than normal. But that's just a possibility. He could have tried it if he hadn't been able to get Patsy and Burke out of the house. The point is that the note put him in charge of the situation so he'd have been in a position to improvise in all sorts of ways none of us might have even thought of.

I see no reason to associate the attache with the suitcase. A suitcase is very different from an attache case. Seems to me he placed it there to make it look like someone boosted himself up when exiting via the window. And never removed it either because he forgot about it in the excitement or was too pressed for time.

Yes and maybe he forgot he left it out and needed a purpose for it being there so he made it seem last mintute as a " prop" as to how the intruder got out the window. Or maybe he thought it looked like he was getting prepared to go the bank .

"Seems to me he placed it there to make it look like someone boosted himself up when exiting via the window. And never removed it either because he forgot about it in the excitement or was too pressed for time."

Ah, that would be convenient. I suppose John picked up most of the glass from the freshly broken window but didn't think or have time to move the suitcase a couple of feet away from the window? There is a big problem with that theory. In order to clean up the glass, John would have had to move the suitcase out of the way to inspect the floor for additional shards. Why would he take the time and trouble to move the suitcase back underneath the window where it was originally staged?

If the suitcase was under the window at the time the window was broken, then yes, it would have had to have been moved in order to pick up the broken glass. Also if John was trying to unstage the window as the intruder's POE he would have wanted to move the suitcase. If FW hadn't moved the suitcase and if he hadn't picked up a piece of glass from the floor and placed it on the sill, the police would have seen a suitcase under the window and a piece of glass on the floor. That would not have been very effective unstaging. This unstaging of the window just doesn't add up.

"If the suitcase was under the window at the time the window was broken," there'd be no need to move it since broken glass can't pass through a solid piece of luggage. All the glass would be clearly visible around the suitcase, not underneath it, so there'd be no need to move it. Looks to me as though John hurriedly picked up as much glass as he could find while in a state of sheer panic -- and missed the few pieces found later by Fleet. As for the suitcase, looks to me as though he either forgot about it or didn't have time to move it back to the place he originally found it, so just left it there. Months later, after he'd learned that Fleet had seen it flush against the wall, he had no choice but to mention it in his own report.

Is some other explanation possible? Only if we are willing to believe John's fairy tale about breaking in months earlier. Is that what YOU think happened?

I saw this posted on a Reddit post referring to something you said. I'm curious what you think.

"DocG says:Didn't a team of handwriting experts rule John out as writer of the note?Yes. And as I see it, this decision was a key blunder -- the principal reason the case got so hopelessly bogged down so early on and has remained so hopelessly confused for so long. I have some ideas as to why these "experts" got it wrong, but the bottom line is that there is a huge difference between a fact and an opinion, no matter how "expert." If we pay attention to the facts, it becomes clear, as I've demonstrated, that only John could have written the note.Unfortunately the decision to rule him out has been treated like a fact and literally never questioned because it was made by so-called "experts." What's often forgotten was that this convocation of "experts" was prompted by John Ramsey's own self styled, self directed "investigation," an "investigation" he should never have been permitted to undertake in the first place.

But he is blatantly wrong on this. The police and investigators were the ones that called in a bunch of different handwriting analysts. Not John. The Ramsey's weren't even talking to the police at this point so he had nothing to do with it. Doc G sometimes refers to these experts as a panel, implying that they all worked together and decided, together, that John didn't write the note. Again, false. The handwriting analysts worked independently and all came to the same conclusion, John didn't write the note and Patsy couldn't be ruled out.He also suggests that John typed the note on a computer and traced it from the computer screen, trying to disguise his handwriting. I think that DocG is so invested in his theory - he even wrote a book about it - that he simply can't be objective."

This person is correct in that I should have been more clear about the sequence of events. After a very short time (possibly within a week as far as I can tell), John, through his lawyers, hired a pair of handwriting "experts" who very quickly ruled him out. Some time later, four more "experts" were employed by the investigation team to do an independent comparison of the handwriting of Patsy and John to the ransom note. And this group also agreed to rule John out, but could not be sure about Patsy.

From what I've read, I assume this was some sort of "convocation," where they all compared notes, and I also had the suspicion that John's "experts" participated in this process, which is why I expressed myself the way I did. But this was just an assumption, not a proven fact and I should have made myself clearer on that point. Of course instead of "prompted" I should have said "influenced." But even on that point I can't be sure, it's just an assumption based probably on something I read in PMPT, and I could be mistaken.

I'm wondering what the writer's source is when he claims the analysts hired by LE worked independently. I anyone can provide that reference I'd be grateful, because that was not my impression.

In any case, I see no reason why John could have been ruled out, especially in the light of the comparisons made by myself and Brugnatelli -- and to my knowledge, the report (or reports) of these "experts" have never been made public.

As far as the use of a computer font is concerned, I've never just "suggested" it, but provided a graphic comparison that, to me at least, looks pretty convincing. It's not essential to my theory, but I find it interesting and possibly relevant.

The key point is that the decision of these "experts" to rule John out is highly questionable, yet seems never to have been questioned.

And no, I've never been invested in any theory. I'm invested in finding some pathway through the clutter of this case that actually makes sense, and if anyone ever proposes an alternate theory that makes more sense than mine, after a consideration of ALL the facts and ALL the evidence, I'll be more than happy to adopt it.

Just for the record, this is what Gideon Epstein, one of the handwriting "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffman, had to say regarding the process by which Patsy and John's writing had been evaluated originally. This is from testimony taken during Chris Wolf's libel suit against the Ramseys, which Epstein was supporting:

2 Q.Now, Mr. Epstein, what exactly is3 your theory about how all these individuals,4 Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford,5 Lloyd Cunningham, Richard Dusick and Howard Rile,6 got it wrong and you, sir, beginning in the7 year 2000, almost four years after the murder in8 this case, and without access to any original9 handwriting of any party you analyzed, got it10right? 11 A. Very well. First of all, I'd like12to say that the field of forensic document13examination in the United States is a very small14profession . . . 18Everyone knows everyone else. There19are certain document examiners who . . . are looked upon by other23examiners as leaders in their field.. . . In this particular2 case I think the fact that Howard Rile and3 Lloyd Cunningham, who became involved in this4 case very early on, and who were retained by5 the Ramsey family, coupled with the fact that6 Lloyd -- that Howard Rile came out of the7 Colorado bureau and knew the people in the8 Colorado bureau, I believe that that connection9 was very instrumental in the Colorado bureau10coming to the conclusion that they did, because11Howard Rile had come to the conclusion that he12did.13Lloyd Cunningham works very closely14with Howard Rile and they were both on this15case, and then it was a matter of chain of16events, one document examiner after another17refusing to go up against someone who they knew,18someone who was large in the profession, for19fear that they would be criticized for saying20something that another examiner -- it's sort of21like an ethics within the medical community,22where one doctor protects the other doctor.. . . when it came down to Dusick and it11came down to Speckin and it came down to12Alford, by that time a number of well-known13document examiners had already rendered14conclusions, and I feel personally that the15other examiners were simply afraid to state what16they believed to be the truth, or that they17simply didn't devote the necessary time. . .

6 And I just don't believe that some7 of these people devoted the necessary amount of8 time to the case to come up with the correct9 conclusions, and I think they simply went along10with what had been previously said because it11was the most expedient thing to do. [my emphases]

As I wrote in the blog post where I first presented this quote,

"Epstein's comments are especially notable because they cut two ways at once. His theory that one or two of these "experts" may have influenced all the others undercuts the unanimity of their decision to find Patsy Ramsey "unlikely," which suits his purpose very well. But he fails to realize that he is also, by the same token, undercutting their decision to "rule out" John Ramsey. Thus, if we assume he takes his own theory as seriously as he expects the judge to take it, we can only wonder why he showed no interest in examining John's exemplars as well as Patsy's."

I agree Doc is very biased and will look past any and everything else. To me it is beyond blatantly clear that Patsy (at the very least) knew about what happened to J.B and went along with the plan to thwart L.E. Her lying about the window by common logic would be her lying about the window, not trying to find some excuse as to why she lied about it or many other things.

Please do yourself a favor and read the post at the top of this page. And if you see a flaw in my reasoning, by all means point it out. I have no interest in what seems "blatantly clear" to you, what interests me are the facts and logic of the case.

I do follow facts, I am sorry that your hypothesis is not a fact . Patsy lying about the window IS a fact as are many other things. Lets test your facts and logic. Knowing that Patsy lied about the window what is the most "logical" conclusion as to why she did that ?

Patsy's testimony about the window is a fact. It is not a fact that she lied -- that's an inference.

I've identified two statements of Patsy's that are almost certainly untrue: her version of what was said prior to the 911 call, as presented in their book; and her story about cleaning up the broken glass in the basement after John allegedly broke in.

In the first case we know there is something wrong with her story because it's contradicted by at least one other version she provided, during an interview.

In the second case her story has been contradicted by Linda the housekeeper who testified that she knew nothing about any broken window or broken glass in the basement. And since there would seem to be no reason for Linda to lie about that, we can conclude that Patsy's story is false. (A conclusion reinforced by all the many other reasons we have for concluding that John's whole story is a lie.)

From your standpoint I'm assuming you'd say she lied because she was involved in the staging from the start, along with John. But if that were the case, then why would she have included Linda in her lie, knowing that Linda would deny it. The only reason I can think of is that, strictly speaking, she was not really lying, but that she actually believed she'd cleaned up that glass -- with the help of the person who would logically have assisted her: Linda. Which strongly suggests an implanted memory -- aka gaslighting.

In both cases, involving the 911 call AND the broken glass, she is corroborating John's version of what happened, and I believe this tells us something important about the reason for both these untruths. I.e.: she was being manipulated by John. This would also explain the long delay before John allowed the police to question them -- he would have needed time to work on her.

Now you can see her story as a lie if you like and you can insist until you're blue in the face that Patsy was involved. But when you consider the big picture, i.e., the case as a whole, that theory simply doesn't stand up -- it's contradicted by a great many other aspects of the case, as presented in some detail on this blog, including the post presented above. You can't just pick and choose whatever there is that supports your version of what happened and ignore everything else.

You can't just pick and choose whatever there is that supports your version of what happened and ignore everything else. I do not pick and choose anything as I will accept any and all evidence from any suspect. You pick, choose and "fit". If you can show me any single piece of evidence that is not a "logical circumstantial" opinion piece against John I would be very surprised. The only thing even remotely close would be the fiber resembling his yet never linked to his sweater in J.B.s panties. Also if you could point out a single shred of evidence where Patsy was NOT involved I will buy in. Things like she was wearing the same clothes the next day makes her innocent, gaslighting about the window and because she called 911 are nothing more than an opinion. As a whole these things and many other things are not the first "logical" conclusions or simple answers to come to unless you want to "fit" them into and around a story. On 1 hand you say that you can not use Patsy's behavioral clues as evidence yet on the other hand you have nothing but behavioral clues about John and that is all your theory is built on is behavioral clues.

If you refuse to see the difference between a logical inference and an opinion, then there is no point in us continuing this debate. When I say it's absurd to assume that both Patsy and John would have wanted to call the police that morning if both were collaborating to stage a phony kidnapping, that is NOT an opinion -- it's a logical inference. If you refuse to accept my logic, fine -- that's your right. But please don't tell me it's just an opinion, because it's not.

When I say it makes no sense for Patsy to have included Linda in her broken glass story if her story is a lie, once again that's a logical inference, not an opinion. And once again, you are free to disagree. But when I take the trouble to carefully sift and logically analyze the evidence in this case it's extremely offensive to be accused of simply promoting my "opinion."

If you think your powers of analysis are greater than mine then by all means demonstrate that by presenting your own theory of what happened -- and backing it up with actual evidence rather than a long list of assumptions.

You are correct, it makes no sense for Patsy to have included Linda in the story about the window. Also it makes no sense that John, rather than break a tiny window in the basement, just breaks a door or leaves 1 open. No sense whatsoever. Yet you are drawing logical inferences off of it. What is the difference indeed ? First off everything does not have to make logical sense to us as I just explained. Just as John broke the window, Patsy may have made the mistake of wearing the same clothes the next day or made the mistake of backing herself into a corner in questioning about the window and thought police would accept her explanation at face value that Linda helped clean it up. She may have thought Linda would never be questioned about it. Just as maybe she was so busy that she forgot to change her clothes in the morning. My only point is that drawing "logical inferences" off of some of the facts i stated is no different and just as valid if not moreso than yours. The odds and chances when someone lies that they were gaslit or manipulated into lying are very slim. That is NOT the odds on common and most logical inference to come to. The most common and logical inference in this situation and any would be that when someone lies they did it on purpose with intent. Furthermore with what we are speaking about (the murder of a mothers child) by her husband would be impossible for her to not figure out why is he is manipulating in this situation. Also I would like to state that my logical inference during the time that Patsy was so drugged up and supposedly could not speak to LE or anyone was most likely because they both wanted to get their stories straight and John had probably felt that she would be the weak link and 1 to slip up during interrogations. So he quieted her during this time period and him and his law firm worked on her. If John is as big of a monster as you claim then surely with John thinking she may slip and that his manipulating would not work then he probably would he have killed her to silence her during this time to save himself from life in prison ? You said had she got up that night she may have been killed so im going along that line of thinking.

"Also it makes no sense that John, rather than break a tiny window in the basement, just breaks a door or leaves 1 open. No sense whatsoever. Yet you are drawing logical inferences off of it."

This is getting tiresome. You make one assumption after another, based on an oversimplified and piecemeal understanding of the case. I wrote several blog posts going over John's two interviews regarding that window in detail, analyzing his responses and pointing to the obvious contradictions. But you point to one single aspect of the case you can't understand and -- what?

I'm really curious to learn exactly what you believe. Who do you think broke that window and why? And what evidence do you have to support your belief?

Yes, John reported that all the doors were locked. But later he tried to weasel out of that by pointing to a photo of a Butler door that had been opened by a policeman. And then he went further, claiming the police found "seven open doors and windows," which is totally misleading.

The doors were in fact locked, as confirmed by one of the policemen first on the scene. Did it occur to you that he may not have had a chance to unlock one of the doors before the police arrived? According to my theory he would have had an awful lot of damage control to do before they showed up.

"Just as John broke the window, Patsy may have made the mistake of wearing the same clothes the next day"

John breaking the window was not a mistake. It was a deliberate attempt at staging. And someone who'd been up all night doing all the things Patsy has been accused of doing would certainly have showered and changed before calling the police. There is no basis for comparison between these two aspects of the case. John broke the window and when his plan was foiled by Patsy, struggled with damage control. Patsy happened to wear the same clothes the next day. Which sounds more suspicious?

All the so-called "evidence" pointing to Patsy is very clearly a contrivance, based on the sheer desperation of investigators desperate to find someone to blame other than the obvious perp: John Ramsey, the teflon suspect, who was "ruled out" from on high and must therefore be innocent. My God. Shake the cobwebs from your eyes.

I won't attempt to respond to the rest of your post because I've already been over all these issues many times and clearly it won't do any good. Believe what you want to believe, see what you want to see. It's what most people do.

As I stated before a logical inference when someone is caught lying would not be to find excuse after excuse as to why they are lying to make it "fit" into your story. Which is exactly what you have done here and why you have to rebuke any evidence that does not fit no matter how obvious it is. To tell the truth would be that we have literally 0 evidence of who murdered JBR. You have focused on 2 things that are not even facts as to how and what happened. You have to have an opinion on this as there are many viable opinions (the window" and the "911 call") and built a story to fit off of what you think is and is not logical off of that opinion. So you are drawing logical inferences off of an opinion. Your claim that it is a "logical inference" that someone would not call 911 with a body in the house or that they would not call 911 if they were involved and thinking that because making that call "did not benefit" them in making it are false. Those are not inferences but opinions. I could look up a boatload of cases where this HAS occured. Thank god that you were not an officer on any of these cases because you would have cleared everyone who made the 911 calls based on them making it because it "made no sense" to you. Apparently it made sense to them and also in most of these cases there is a hidden mental illness and the person who committed it is not thinking logically or rationally at that time. So it would be impossible to try and think of what a logical person would do in that situation and what "makes sense". It is not that I find every point you make wrong or that I do not agree with you on some things however it is very clear to me and many others that PR was involved in at the least the cover up. I have thrown many things out there as have many others and you rebuke them and call all 15 clues layed out "cherry picking" and have some off the wall excuse for PR every time. Gaslighting, its only a depo, wearing the same clothes makes her innocent, when she says we didnt mean for this to happen you want to pretend she was talking about burning dinner or something when it is more than abundantly clear what she meant. You pick and choose which handwriting analysis were good and which werent, all those (and there were many) which said it was PRs writing are all invalid. All of these experts that are "at the very least" very highly trained you try and write them off as some kind of Helen Keller because it doesnt fit.

I'm done trying to debate this with you because you keep raising the same issues over and over, regardles of how I respond. I get it, OK, you disagree. Which is fine with me.

As I see it, two people collaborating on the staging of a kidnapping would not call the police on themselves while the body of their victim is in the house, thus negating their carefully contrived plan and turning their ransom note into evidence against them. Clearly you feel differently. And you have that right. Makes no sense to me, but that's OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now please: enough.

The police found a red turtleneck sweater on JonBenet's bathroom counter despite Patsy initially stating to police on the morning of December 26, that JonBenet had gone to bed wearing a red turtleneck. Her body, however, was found in the same white pullover she had worn the previous evening. Realizing that the truth of what really happened to JonBenet was on the brink of surfacing, Patsy's lawyer no doubt advised her to change that statement by instructing her to specifically NOT mention the red turtleneck again.

Sorry, Hercule, but I don't follow. Why is it suspicious that JonBenet was found wearing something different from what Patsy put her to bed with? And assuming she was guilty, why would she want to lie about that?

Doc says that it cannot be an intruder because they wouldn’t write such a long ransom note in the house. Or they would have penned a note before entering the house.

I don’t accept that whatsoever.

If it was an intruder, they would have known the Ramseys (or at least been watching them). He/She/They knew the Ramseys would be out all day for Xmas. They knew that had all the time in the world to pen a note in the house. In fact, it makes more sense to write it in the house on the Ramsey’s stationary because then they aren’t bringing evidence into the house. They probably practiced the not a hundred times at home and could write most of it in under 15 minutes.

Didn’t the Ramsey’s have a party weeks before JBR was killed? Does anyone have a list of guests? Surely one of those could have stolen a key or at least given the house a lookaround in preparation for that fateful evening. The intruder could have been in the house when the Ramsey’s got home, taken JBR and took her to the basement where no one could hear them.

Maybe they tried to take her from the house but maybe there was problems (she could have fought back) or maybe they ran into other issues leaving the house. So they thought they would hide her body in that room fully covered and hope the Ramsey’s wouldn’t call the police and wouldn’t find her body so they could get their money. Of course, they would have known the police were called and this would have forced them to stay quiet because they knew the body would then be found.

"They knew that had all the time in the world to pen a note in the house. In fact, it makes more sense to write it in the house on the Ramsey’s stationary because then they aren’t bringing evidence into the house."

A ransom note is evidence, period. Whether it was written prior to or after entering the house it is still evidence. And if you write it by hand it is evidence that could be used to identify you. Your writing is far more likely to give you away than the paper it is written on. Consequently I see no benefit to waiting until inside the house to write the note -- and considerable risk, because the Ramseys could have come home early or a neighbor could have become suspicious.

I defy you to find a single instance in the history of crime where a would-be kidnapper waited until inside the house of his victim to write his ransom note. That makes no sense at all. I also defy you to find a single instance of a "kidnapping" where a ransom note was left at the scene but the victim was never actually removed from the house. And if this was a kidnapping gone wrong, then the kidnapper would have taken his potentially incriminating note with him, not left it for no reason.

"Maybe they tried to take her from the house but maybe there was problems (she could have fought back) or maybe they ran into other issues leaving the house. So they thought they would hide her body in that room fully covered and hope the Ramsey’s wouldn’t call the police and wouldn’t find her body so they could get their money. Of course, they would have known the police were called and this would have forced them to stay quiet because they knew the body would then be found."

I've considered this possibility, and discuss it here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-improved-intruder-theory.html It doesn't work for several reasons, as you'll learn if you read my post.

In addition to the absurdity of literally all intruder scenarios, we have considerable evidence of lies, misdirections, and suspicious behavior on John's part. Much of this evidence is summarized in books by both Steve Thomas and James Kolar, not to mention an extremely damaging report by yet another detective involved in the case, Linda Arndt. I've alluded to John's many misdirections and outright lies several times on this blog. Most outrageous is his story about breaking the basement window the previous summer, and then not being able to recall if it had ever been repaired in all that time.

No, I'm sorry, but the case against John Ramsey is very strong, and there is no case to be made for an intruder -- no intruder theory I've ever heard makes sense.

@ Zed. I sometimes feel as if all IDI theorists have read only a few paragraphs about the case. So you want us to believe that a killer hung out in the house roaming around for hours? They abducted JB, fed her pineapple,molested her, hit her in the head then waited about an hour to strangle her. They then proceeded to hide the body wipe it down and then write a 3 page ransom note. After that they then go back to JBs room and get clothes to redress her and then proceeed to go thru laundry in the dryer to find her favorite blanket to cover her in. They then ransomed John and Patsy and to tell all the lies they have told as well. Totally believable ! Totally believable ! If the intruder had took the time to bbq and cook a 5 course meal at 3am I still think that you IDIs would argue that an intruder had done it.

"Sorry, Hercule, but I don't follow. Why is it suspicious that JonBenet was found wearing something different from what Patsy put her to bed with? And assuming she was guilty, why would she want to lie about that?"

It is important because JonBenet's turtleneck was found balled up on the bathroom counter. Patsy's first statement was that JonBenet went to bed wearing the turtleneck. How did the turtleneck end up in the bathroom? Patsy later changed her statement concerning the clothes JonBenet wore to bed. Why would she change her story? Why indeed.

There were marks around the front of JonBenet's neck indicating friction from a turtleneck as if someone had pulled her collar in the midst of a struggle. The shirt JonBenet was wearing when her body was found could not have made such wide marks. The evidence suggests that there was an altercation in the bathroom. JonBenet could have wet the bed with urine also spreading to her turtleneck which would explain why it was discarded in the bathroom.

After receiving details of JonBenet's autopsy, I find it more than reasonable to assume that Team Ramsey tweaked Patsy's earlier statements so it would appear that there was no bedwetting incident, therefore no abuse leading to an accident and subsequent murder.

When you say Patsy changed her story, please be more specific, because I'm not aware of that. Here's what Steve Thomas wrote on this matter, in his book, which is, I presume, the source of your information:

"On December 26 Patsy had told police that JonBenét went to sleep wearing the red turtleneck top, which was later found balled up on the bathroom sink. Now it was the white one in which the body was found. Inconsistent."

And here's the relevant excerpt from his interview with Patsy in 1997:

ST: And remind me, what shirt did she go to bed in? Was that the same shirt that she wore to the Whites that night?PR: Yes.ST: The red, uh . . .PR: no it was white.ST: Okay. And then those little white sort of thermal bottoms?PR: Right.

NB. This is ALL Steve has to ask regarding that shirt. Now if he was so concerned about the inconsistency between what she had said on Dec. 26th and what she was now telling him, why didn't he challenge her on that point? This would have been a great opportunity to catch her in a lie, but he immediately changes the subject. I have to wonder about exactly what she said on the 26th and to whom. And why Steve chose to ignore the discrepancy while questioning her, only to bring it up in his book as evidence of deception.

I also have to wonder what she would have had to gain by such a deception? If Patsy put her to bed in a red shirt and she was found in a white shirt, how does that implicate Patsy? Why would she have needed to change her story?

I must say I'm really curious about Steve's comment regarding what Patsy said on the 26th because I was under the impression that she wasn't questioned until the following spring. Is there any record of what she was asked on that day, and by whom?

"There were marks around the front of JonBenet's neck indicating friction from a turtleneck as if someone had pulled her collar in the midst of a struggle. The shirt JonBenet was wearing when her body was found could not have made such wide marks. The evidence suggests that there was an altercation in the bathroom. JonBenet could have wet the bed with urine also spreading to her turtleneck which would explain why it was discarded in the bathroom."

Sorry, Hercule, but the FACT is that JonBenet was sexually assaulted, violently so -- drawing blood from her vagina. This is an established fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was attacked in a altercation over bedwetting. That's a fantasy by Steve Thomas, every bit as much as fantasy as Lou Smit's stun gun theory.

Even if she'd wet her bed, that in itself means nothing as far as the assault is concerned, since the assault was sexual, not at all consistent with a mother's rage over bed wetting. So if you want to imagine what happened in that bathroom, I suggest you use your imagination to picture a scene consistent with the evidence, and not what Steve Thomas needed in order to establish some sort of motive for Patsy to have murdered the child who was so obviously precious to her, to whom her whole life was devoted.

"I suggest you use your imagination to picture a scene consistent with the evidence, and not what Steve Thomas needed in order to establish some sort of motive for Patsy to have murdered the child who was so obviously precious to her, to whom her whole life was devoted."

I'm sorry, Doc, but Patsy being perceived as a loving and devoted mother means little to nothing. Connie Foster was described as a loving and devoted mother despite murdering her two kids earlier this month. So what's your point?

In the child abuse cases that I've investigated, the most overlooked aspect is how close and "loving" the offender and victim are to one another. In fact, sometimes it is that strong bond that can turn a simple argument into a dangerous or even deadly confrontation. The closer they are, the more betrayed they feel when that person hurts them. The mother/daughter bond can be a powerful one, but that power, unfortunately can be just as negative as it can be positive, creating an extremely volatile relationship.

JonBenet was only 6 years old. I find it hard to comprehend a scenario like you describe. Besides, you have been supporting a scenario of Patsy losing her temper over bedwetting. Now its some kind of love/hurt thing between the two of them?

You conveniently dodged the principal point, Hercule. The evidence is consistent with a sexual assault by an adult male, not a rage killing by a mother over bed wetting. You can assume all you like about Patsy's mental state, but the evidence does not support your theory.

Digital penetration is what the med. examiner reported. And that is very different from penetration with a paintbrush, which would have left a very different sort of wound, more acute, with far more bleeding. Some residue from the paintbrush handle was found in her vagina, which led some to assume she was penetrated with it, but indirect transfer via the attackers finger is far more likely, given the nature of the wounds.

Regardless, sexual assault, combined with evidence of prior molestation strongly suggests a male rather than a female attacker.

I did not know you were so experienced in analysis of paintbrushes stuck in vaginas Doc ? LOL. Common sense here - You could insert a paint brush gently into a vagina and move it like a sex toy and get no damage at all or you could ram it in as hard as possible and do extensive damage or somewhere in between depending on force used. If this was John I would expect alot more done than digital penetration. Also this shows that extensive cleaning of the vagina was not done. It is most likely scientifically impossible that the fingers left particles from the paintbrush in the vagina. If no dna from the fingering after such a brutal penetration was done to JBR then that would point to only a paintbrush being used.

The notion that JonBenet was penetrated by a paint brush handle is what I regard as part of the folklore of this case. To me it's a perfect example of how easily so many following the case have been able to jump to completely unwarranted conclusions. This is only one of many.

"Birefringent foreign material" was found in her vagina, consistent with the varnish painted on the surface of the paint brush handle. As a result of this finding, and this finding alone, many have jumped to the conclusion she must have been penetrated with that handle.

I've been able to find no evidence consistent with such a conclusion. Nothing of that sort is mentioned or even suggested in the coroner's report. Cyril Wecht's analysis of that report concludes that "she probably had been penetrated by some small, narrow object -- probably a finger." (see p. 99 of "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?")

A paintbrush handle would have produced very distinctive wounds, but neither the coroner nor Wecht picked up on anything like that.

If her attacker had used a glove, that would explain the lack of DNA. And given the nature of the injuries described, it would seem far more likely that the birefringent material had been transferred from the paintbrush to the attacker's glove and from the glove to the vagina.

This is perfectly consistent with a sexual assault by an adult male. An adult male penis would have been much too large to fit into the vagina of a six year old.

Doc, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. You present it as "one, but not both, of the parents did it," while too easily dismissing the idea of an intruder being the guilty party.

I'm not sold on the "John did it" hypothesis. For starters, why would he tell the cops that all of the doors were locked? Surely he would either say he didn't know, or perhaps even go out and actively unlock one of them himself. If he wanted people to think that an intruder did it, you'd think he would leave himself another out, just in case the broken window didn't pan out.

And of course, the ransom note doesn't make any sense. If it was all a burglary gone wrong, you don't write out a long ransom note like that. The same goes for if one of the family members did it. You'd write a short note with simple demands and language, and then be on your way. The only way a ransom note makes sense with the traditional theories is if it was a kidnapping gone wrong...but then why leave the note behind if the body was still in the house? Either the killer tries to make it look like a kidnapping and takes the body, or they take the note and cut their losses. And again, if John wrote the note, he wouldn't have made it as long as it was (if only because it increases the likelihood that it can be tied back to him through handwriting analysis or linguistic clues).

While I don't buy into the "random intruder" theory, I do think that it's very likely that the guilty party was someone (possibly a business associate) actively trying to hurt John - not just by killing his daughter, but by framing him for her murder. And the way this UnSub would have done this was to make it look as if John had killed his daughter...and then tried to cover it up.

We know that plenty of people who knew the Ramseys had keys to their house, which would account for the locked doors and lack of signs of forced entry. All of the evidence (murder weapon, etc.) came from inside the house, which would be consonant with someone deliberately trying to stage the crime to look as if it were an inside job. The ransom note goes on and on about business, which suggests that the person was one of John's business associates (the pineapple data also suggest that the killer knew JonBenet). The writer might have even included some "John-isms" to make it seem more authentic (the $180,000 figure is relevant here as well). This would also explain the length and deliberateness of the note - it had been laboured over for quite a bit of time, probably long before the murder took place.

And then there's the draft of the note that the killer left behind, which seems less like a mistake and more like a deliberate attempt at pointing attention at the parents. Why wouldn't John or Patsy have destroyed the drafts had one of them been the writer? They would have known that the cops would have eventually found the drafts. It just doesn't make sense.

The only way it all fits together is if you assume that someone was TRYING to make it look nonsensical, and trying to make it look as if John (and possibly Patsy) were involved. And it seems as if the most likely explanation for why someone would want to do that is that the killer did it to frame John.

"For starters, why would he tell the cops that all of the doors were locked? Surely he would either say he didn't know, or perhaps even go out and actively unlock one of them himself. If he wanted people to think that an intruder did it, you'd think he would leave himself another out, just in case the broken window didn't pan out."

We don't know the circumstances under which John made that statement to the police. As with so many aspects of this case it's easy to assume we know things we actually have no knowledge of at all. It's possible he was so busy in the basement, collecting the broken glass, that he ran out of time when the doorbell rang and the police were admitted into the house. Too late by then to open a door without being noticed.

It's possible he thought at first that the police would buy into his window staging and only realized moments later that there was going to be a problem. We know very little about the timing since the situation was so chaotic.

What we DO know is how unlikely John's story about breaking that window is. To repeat what I wrote in an earlier comment:

He was unable to recall hardly any of the details of his window story, not how he lost his keys, not even whether or not he took a cab home from the airport. He was unable to explain why he didn't break in via a ground floor window. He was unable to explain why he didn't phone his neighbor from the airport so he could borrow his key. His story about removing his "business suit" to climb in half naked is absurd on its face. He couldn't recall how he climbed in, frontwise or rearwise. He was unable to explain how he could locate the exact right window pane to break while wedged into that tight space in total darkness.

Moreover, neither he nor Patsy were able to recall whether the window had ever been repaired. They gave the same response on two different occasions, roughly a year apart -- plenty of time to check. It is moreover impossible to believe they would have left that window unrepaired in all that time, or at least taped a piece of cardboard over the opening. Finally, the one eye witness in this case, Linda Hoffmann Pugh, claimed she knew nothing about any broken window, not only at the time she was working on her book, but from the very beginning, when she was strongly supportive of Patsy. If anyone would have noticed a broken window in that basement it would have been her.

Finally, according to Kolar, the forensics team were unable to determine from examining the glass whether the break was old or new. Now if a layer of dust or grime had been found on the edges that would have been clear evidence that the break was old. So obviously the edges must have been clean. Which tells me it was a fresh break -- regardless of whether or not the window had ever been repaired.

It's one thing to focus in on one or two things that might seem odd or unlikely and quite another to see the case as a whole, in the light of ALL the evidence.

"While I don't buy into the "random intruder" theory, I do think that it's very likely that the guilty party was someone (possibly a business associate) actively trying to hurt John - not just by killing his daughter, but by framing him for her murder. And the way this UnSub would have done this was to make it look as if John had killed his daughter...and then tried to cover it up."

Please reread the post at the top of this page. Here's the relevant passage: "Someone attempting to frame Patsy or John would not have written the note in his own hand (disguised or not), but attempted a forgery."

If an intruder intended to frame John he did a terrible job, since the handwriting "experts" compared his exemplars to the note and decided he could not have written it. While I don't accept their verdict, it seems clear that the note must have looked very different from the exemplars supplied by John. If there were any sign of forgery that would have been noted, but I've never seen any reference to such a hypothesis in the literature on this case.

Moreover, if the intruder hated John that much it seems strange that he would have made no further attempt to harm him in all these years, especially after he was "exonerated" and got off scot free.

John wanted everyone to think it was a crime by the housekeeper who had a key, or maybe someone else who had a key. When he found out that she had an alibi and was cleared, he switched his story to say that he didn't check all the doors. John is very good at changing his stories to align with the thinking of LE.

I thought I Read somewhere that the police have more evidence that hasnt been made public... does anyone have a clue as to what that might be? I could of sworn I Read that the have something that belongs to the suspect ?

"Now if a layer of dust or grime had been found on the edges that would have been clear evidence that the break was old. So obviously the edges must have been clean."

I disagree. I clearly see grime on the broken edges of the glass. There were also signs of an old disturbance on the outside of the windowsill. The temperature in the basement was often so hot that the window had often been left open anyway to cool off the room so it was not in the forefront of the Ramseys' minds to have it fixed. I think it is reasonable to assume that they could have wanted to give the police the idea, (to avoid suspicion of irresponsibility) that they had intended to have it fixed and had probably mentioned it to Linda or Mervin when in reality they did not.

There was enough evidence to suggest the break was old. John and Patsy's "forgetfulness" while being interrogated was clearly planned by their lawyers so that the police would have nothing concrete to establish. Lawyers are not nearly as concerned about how suspicious John and Patsy may appear to be when they cannot "recall" particular events. Team Ramsey was astute enough to realize that even the truth, at times, needed to be adjusted to better supplement their cause.

Interesting that you see grime from a video but the forensic experts who actually examined the glass apparently saw none. If they'd seen what you see, then it would have been clear to them that the break was old. But this is NOT what Kolar reported. He said there was no way to determine whether or not the break was old by examining the glass. And the investigators saw a reason to question John at length about that story on two separate occasions, a year apart. And asked whether the window had been repaired. An odd question to ask if the evidence revealed an old break.

Do we know that the basement was hot, and what would have made it hot? I live in the south, have a basement, and its relatively cool all the time, summer, spring, fall, and winter. Just curious about where this fact or assumption comes from.

One of the things that people overlook about the 911 call being made so early is the fact that it HAD to be made before they were scheduled to leave for their 7am flight. If they waited beyond this time, it would appear suspicious that the family didn't phone in the kidnapping at a time when they were supposed to be up and getting ready to leave for the airport. Yes, in theory they could always say they were following the instructions of the note but it still presents the problem of disposing the body in broad daylight -- a risk the Ramseys could ill afford to take. This predicament applies to either parent regardless of involvement.

I disagree. Eventually after John played out the ruse, they would have to contact authorities once it was clear JonBenet's body was not going to be 'returned'. Law enforcement would find out that no calls from the purported kidnappers had been made to the house and the whole thing would unravel.

Calling P.R. with a disguised voice? Thinking that it is riskier to move the body that night than a day and a half later and calling his own house to leave a message are all beyond risky propositions with so many possibilities of getting caught it is unreal. These are not impossible but very big streches of imagination. If he wanted to move the body there was no better time than 3am christmas night.I agree with anonymous above that you are so obsessed with your theory that you can not be objective or anything to close it. C.J.

My approach to the case takes ALL the evidence into account. Including the note. There had to have been a reason why a note was left and there had to have been a reason for its content.

No kidnapper would have waited to write such a note until he was in the house of his victim, and there was, in fact, no kidnapping, so it must have been written by someone IN the house. Are you with me so far?

While my interpretation is frankly speculative and some aspects might seem far fetched, it is consistent with ALL the evidence, and it provides an explanation of the note's content. To my knowledge, I've presented the only theory of the case that does that.

If you can think of a more convincing reason why the note was written, I'd love to hear it. Obviously the person who wrote it had some sort of plan. I've outlined the plan I see in it. What plan do you see?

It's not enough to claim the note was written simply to provide evidence of an intruder, I'm sorry but that's no explanation at all. It's obviously designed to stage a kidnapping, and everything in it tells us the writer's plan was to get the body out of the house prior to the police being called. If the intention was to stage a home intrusion and not a kidnapping, the note would have been completely different, and most likely much shorter.

Now, exactly how he expected to carry out that plan we can't be sure. And some of my speculations could be wrong. It's possible he never thought all the consequences through and his plan might have been doomed from the start.

But I've outlined a series of possibilities that might have worked. Might have. Sure it would have been very risky, but murdering your daughter is also very risky. He might have felt he had no choice but take those risks.

There is nothing in any of my speculations that's inconsistent with the note or with the evidence. Imo that might very well have been his plan. But maybe not. Maybe he had something else in mind.

Bottom line. That note was written by someone who certainly would not have wanted the police called in before he'd been able to remove the body from the house. That is NOT speculation. That's simple common sense.

When looking at it with only the notion that there had to be some plan for the note I see what you see. In order to do that though I have to ignore a great many other things. I personally can not believe that a distraught mother who truly thinks her daughter is kidnapped does not so much as go in her room to check on her and does not even look around the house for her. Then her actions after by calling 911, not so much as acknknowledging the ransom call time had passed, inviting people over and basically spitting in the note's face point me another way. I have seen you tell people that this behavior is "not evidence" but I believe that it is, as it usually is in any other case. I just can not ignore all of the other evidence as you do to find this true. You surely may be on to something here but possibly there is more to it than John alone. Possibly some odd scenario or one that does not make logical sense.

First of all, Patsy did go to JonBenet's room and immediately saw that she was not there.

She didn't look around the house for her because she accepted the basic message of the ransom note, that JonBenet had been kidnapped. As I see it, this was one of the goals of that note, to discourage her from turning the house upside down looking for her, and it worked.

I too find it hard to understand why Patsy would want to call 911 in the light of all those threats, and I also find it hard to understand why she'd call those friends and invite them over. However, I see nothing suspicious in any of this. If she was in on the coverup, she would have had nothing to gain by calling the police with the body still in the house, and everything to lose by showing them a note written in her own hand.

And if she and John were staging a kidnapping together, I see no reason why they would want to fly in the face of the instructions they themselves had written, to invite friends over. Thus, as hard as it may be to understand Patsy's reasons for doing these things, there is, as I see it, nothing suspicious about them. Just carelessness, I suppose-- and/or sheer panic.

And by the way I don't ignore any of the evidence. Unlike so many others, I consider ALL of it. But every detail has to be considered in the light of the overall picture.

I fully agree that Doc's theory sounds pretty good in theory but I find it impossible that a spouse who was there, who was accused and who knows all of the inside information would not be able to pick up on a single thing that Doc has put forth if that were the case. If she did have a clue and was not involved then there is no way that Patsy or her family would keep their mouth shut about it and pretend that all was okay with John. If that were my baby it would not matter how many drugs I was on because I would track that person down until I died ! Realizing this makes me understand why I find Patsy's actions after the murder to be much more of someone who knew what happened to her baby.Jay

Patsy would not have known any of the inside information. She would not have had a clue. How could she?

Why has it so consistently been assumed that they would have to have been in it together? If it were my child and I learned my spouse had just killed her, for whatever reason, there is no way I'd want to help him, or her, get away with it. And why would someone who had just murdered his or her child, want to share that information with a spouse -- or anyone else for that matter?

"Realizing this makes me understand why I find Patsy's actions after the murder to be much more of someone who knew what happened to her baby."

What an odd conclusion. Realizing what you just wrote should convince you that Patsy knew nothing.

Patsy being there and being on "the inside" of this investigation there is just no way possible that Patsy could not have picked up on at least 1 thing that we pick up on. Especially with the police's and the public's first accusations being that John molested and killed his daughter. Jay

Well first of all she was a basket case for weeks after the murder, thus not in a position to do much sleuthing. By the time she'd recovered, John's "experts" had ruled him out as writer of the note. Aside from a very few people like myself, not connected with the investigation, NO ONE ever questioned that decision. So why would you expect HER to?

Also it was not in her interest to suspect John, accusing him would have been disastrous for her, as he and his lawyers were her chief supporters. We see what we want to see -- and that is not what she wanted to see.

I am sure she was a basketcase. I am also sure that whoever commited the murder was a basketcase as well. So that carries little weight. John claiming that she was a basketcase or anything else hold little to no value for me. No matter who in the family committed the murder it is clear that John did not want any of the family speaking to L.E. Hence he would make any excuse and tactical move possible for them to avoid it. If anything I find it makes her look even moreso as being involved. Just as no one else has ever found a ransom note with the body in the house, I have never heard of a mother who after having her daughter raped and killed under her own roof and watch, then denies police interrogation for that long. Drugs, basketcase or whatever she should have been running down L.E. kicking and screaming. Every other mother I have ever seen this happen to are running to L.E. not avoiding them at all costs. Besides that with us knowing the meds that she was on she surely was not incapacitated as we are lead to believe. I have known people taking the exact same combo of meds and they function and live normal lives, go to work etc etc. I think this is an instance where are getting plenty of smoke blown up our butts.

We are supposed to believe that Patsy may have had suspicions about JR early in the morning, hence the call to 911, but then her suspicions are put aside completely because JR is ruled out. IMO if PR ever had suspicions about JR those suspicions would never have gone away.

"I am also sure that whoever commited the murder was a basketcase as well."

John acted upset, yes, but he was certainly not a basket case, no. He lawyered up very soon -- according to some reports that very day. Patsy's friends reported that she was literally incapacitated after being confronted with her daughter's dead body, almost to the point of being catatonic. It wasn't just the meds she was taking, it was the extreme stress of dealing with JonBenet's murder.

John is clearly the one who hired the lawyers, the public relations people, the private investigators and the handwriting "experts" during this period. We have no reason to believe that Patsy took part in any of this.

The legal strategy, obviously directed by John, was based on the notion that the police were "out to get them," and could not be trusted. As I see it, Patsy must have felt she had no choice but to go along with that strategy, which meant staying away from the police.

I don't see that at all. There's no evidence he was trying to frame her. And he'd have had nothing to gain by framing her. He was clearly constructing an intruder, someone with a grudge, probably a former business associate.

Use of the phrase "southern common sense" could mean all sorts of things. As I see it, it's consistent with sarcasm by someone with inside knowledge of the family, which is an important theme of the note as a whole. It doesn't suggest Patsy because there's no reason for her to insert something associated with her in a note designed to point away from her.

As for the phrase "and hence," John is on record as having used that term in an interview. To my knowledge there is no record of Patsy ever using it. Her style is breezy and informal, his is rather stilted and formal. "And hence" is more his style than hers.

The phrase appeared in a Xmas message written by the two of them jointly, but it was immediately attributed to Patsy because she became the focus of attention. Another example of how easy it is to make unwarranted assumptions.

I have read that John and Burke were down in the the train room that evening upon returning from the white party. Tonight I came across a site of pictures of the autopsy (i wish I can share it here) it shows a picture from one of jonbenets photoshoots, on her lower leg.. faint bu . 2 marks are shown just like the ones found on her neck and body when found dead. Possible marks from the train set???? Could it be Burke hit the fatal blow and john knowing he had been touching JonBenet finished it ???

I've discussed the possibility of Burke's involvement in other posts. If you do a search on his name you'll find them. I think it extremely unlikely that Burke was involved, but I do think it likely he knows more than he's been willing to share.

Not to change the subject, but I just wanted to say how clear Doc's point is (well at least to me) that you have to take ALL the evidence in consideration. You can't just cherry pick something and say that points to pr or jr etc. It is like Rubik's Cube. You can't just do one side and go ah ha - because most likely the other sides are out of sync. To solve the cube all the sides have to be in sync. Like the only reason some people can give for jr and pr working on the cover up together would be to protect Burke. But then when you turn the cube to Burke's side nothing really makes sense for him to be the murderer. Doc's got the cube covered lol.I agree Burke knows more than he is saying. If not him, someone knows the truth and will talk someday.

Thanks so much for the kind words. Especially appreciated since I've been getting so much flak lately. :-(

Rubik's Cube is an excellent model for the complexity of this case, so thanks for that especially. If you look only at one side, e.g., all the many odd things Patsy is reported to have done or said, then yes she can look suspicious for sure. But when you rotate that cube to see her actions from another perspective, it becomes evident that the situation is more complex than it seems.

The turning point for me was when I realized that the decision to rule John out was an opinion, not a fact. When I decided to review the case after ruling him in, then everything started to fit, and from just about every angle. And yes, there are admittedly some places where the little cubes rub against one another a bit, and need a bit of tweaking to fit tightly. I feel we ought to be able to take this in stride -- because there are many things we don't know about this case and will probably never know. Rubik's cube is a carefully machined mechanical device designed for everything to fit perfectly. The Ramsey case is a perplexing mix of complex human actions, motivations and deceptions, so we can't expect a comparable degree of precision fit for all elements.

Yes, it's true that Patsy supported John's window story, which as I see it, is a clumsy set of lies. And if we focus only on that obvious untruth it might look like the two are in it together. Rotating the cube, however, we see how unlikely that theory is, and for several reasons. (Won't get into all that now as I've already covered that territory several times on this blog.)

So. Something has to give, because both theories can't be right. The best I've been able to come up with is some sort of manipulation or even gaslighting on John's part. Once we accept that possibility the pieces fit. If we reject it, then the whole thing falls apart into a hundred incompatible pieces and we're back where we started.

If John had gaslit Patsy then I am pretty sure with him knowing that HE had just broken the window would not have Patsy include Linda in the gaslighting. Patsy would have had exact manipulation stating that only she had cleaned up the open glass. Also after Linda refuted her claim she would have no choice but to suspect John and also to give a much better thought of the window not being broken for the past 6mos or so.

Finally we can agree on something. Had Patsy been gaslit she would have been subjected to repetitive suggestions, and they would have been much more specific and would indeed not have included LHP. Far likelier John simply told her he broke in while she was at the lake. She knew he'd broken in before, John called the shots in that relationship, and she chose to believe him.

You forget that it was Patsy who - two days after the murder, when the pageant photos came out - was lambasted by the media and the general public, Patsy upon whom LE fixed as the likeliest suspect. She was probably grateful to him for supporting her when the whole world had seemingly turned against her.

He told her he broke the window the previous summer, out of long habit, guilt over exposing her daughter to predators and a sense of gratitude, she believed him. Not complicated, not difficult to understand. CC

"If John had gaslit Patsy then I am pretty sure with him knowing that HE had just broken the window would not have Patsy include Linda in the gaslighting."

You're assuming he would have hypnotized her into telling a very specific, pre-scripted story. Seems more likely that he would simply have implanted a very general memory of her cleaning up the broken glass, with her then fleshing out that memory with the details of Linda's participation, since it was her habit to call on Linda to clean up any and every mess in that house. Thus one false memory, implanted by John, could have been supplemented by another false memory, prompted by Patsy herself. I doubt very much that John would have wanted Linda included in that story, for obvious reasons, but an innocent Patsy would have had no problem with it.

While this might seem far-fetched, I see no other reason for Patsy including Linda in her story. If it were an out and out lie, she would certainly not have done so.

CC: "He told her he broke the window the previous summer, out of long habit, guilt over exposing her daughter to predators and a sense of gratitude, she believed him. Not complicated, not difficult to understand."

I tend to agree with your very reasonable analysis, CC, and I do think this could have been a big part of the process. But in itself it doesn't explain why she would have included Linda if she knew very well that Linda didn't participate. I think you are confusing gaslighting with hypnosis, where someone is just programmed to do a specific set of tasks and nothing more. John certainly would not have wanted her to include Linda in that story, and if it were simply a lie, Patsy would not have wanted that either. As I see it, the truth behind this story is likely to be much more complicated -- and interesting.

Regardless. There are many aspects of this case that can turn us inside out speculating forever on why this was done or not done or why that was said, etc. This is what I've called the "morass" because it's all basically inconclusive and can be interpreted in many different ways depending on your take on who did what.

Which is why I decided to focus on the facts, and very straightforward, simple inferences based on those facts. If no clear inferences are possible, as in this case, then debating it forever is not helpful.

I agree with you on most points C.C. however while she was grilled by the media for the pageants, John was getting the worst of it as everone including myself felt he was a molester and responsible. Possibly my first instincts were correct and were tainted by the unending supply of tainted evidence pointing in all directions.

We know JR claims the window had been broken during the summer when PR and the kids were in MI. That is not in dispute. The timing is necessary because PR can't deny something happened when she was out of state. Of course this only works if PR didn't know the window hadn't been broken earlier -e.g. she had not been in that room for several months. I find that unlikely. But let's go with it. She didn't know whether or not the window had been broken "last summer" and she can't deny that it happened while she was out of state - how would she know? So JR doesn't need to gaslight her about the timing of the break, she accepts it out of ignorance. But JR supposedly gaslights her into believing that she cleaned up bits of glass herself. Even if Patsy accepts JR's suggestion, she would have to ask herself, if the glass had been broken during the summer while she and the kids were out of state, why was it allowed to lay there for several weeks for her to pick up when she returned home? They do have a housekeeper.

If JR needed to dupe her into supporting the window story he'd have suggested that he picked up the glass himself. It would perhaps be out of character, but no one would be able to deny that something had happened in their absence. JR could have said he had picked it up because Linda was off duty and he worried he'd get too busy with business to remember to tell her to clean it up. Plausible deniability. That LHP would deny any knowledge of it is a given. Better to have a story consistent with her very predictable denial.

That Patsy had not been gaslighted is clear from the fact that she claimed to have picked up shards of glass. JR wouldn't have tried to include her in an event that never happened, especially since there is no logical reason for the glass to remain on the floor for several weeks for Patsy to pick up upon her return from Charlevoix. Again, they do have a housekeeper. Patsy's "involvement" doesn't make the story more plausible, it raises questions and contradicts LHP.

So, Patsy either is in on the coverup, or she has been coerced into going along with the story because she, at that point, was the prime suspect and JR could basically force her to go along with the story.

First of all, we don't know how many weeks elapsed before Patsy's return, since John's story is so very vague. She could have returned the next day, the next week or the next month, because John "can't recall" hardly any details of this story.

It's true of course that John could simply have claimed he cleaned it up on his own before Patsy's return. That way there would have been no need to gaslight her. This does seem reasonable as far as it goes. However, as I see it, he must have realized how phony his story would sound, and was therefore in need of someone to back it up. By instilling a false memory, John provided the authorities with a witness who could corroborate his story.

Regardless of the reason, we are left with the fact that Patsy did back up his story -- only in such a way as to caste doubt on it at the same time by including Linda. As I see it, the best explanation for this odd behavior is her confusion about what really happened, based on the fact that it never actually happened at all. If it were a lie she would not have been confused, and would not have mentioned Linda. Which tells me this is most likely an implanted memory.

Drawing my conclusions from the crime scene. Why would an intruder taken his or her precious time to hide a body in the house and what is the probability of grabbing her favorite blanket and wrapping her body in it.. unless it was the only thing available in the house. I pray she gets justice

What is obvious to me is that Burke is the killer. The handwriting on the ransom note is his. The scrapbook handwriting used at the Darnay Hoffman deposition was Burke's. He was describing himself in the photos. What people cannot comprehend is that Burke was a highly intelligent boy. I strongly believe he had a mild form or autism or asperger's. His parents did not want his medical records released for that reason. There is evidence of his behavior that supports that claim. Violent tantrums. Hitting JonBenet with a golf club.

He was a big fan of movies. Watched them every night. He loved action movies especially the ones that involved transportation such as buses, trains and planes. The movie "Ransom" had Mel Gibson playing the role of an airline mogul. The movie "Dirty Harry" and "Speed" included buses with hostages. "Murder on the Orient Express" involved a train. This movie poster was in the basement along with Burke's train set.

It's hard to imagine that a 9 year old boy could plot such a murder and write such an intelligent ransom note but he was exceptional. Autistic kids are highly intelligent, keep to themselves, obsessed with specific things like trains, planes, automobiles, sailboats, etc. Burke's room was decorated from top to bottom with things like that. His parents tried to get him into sports but he was very uncoordinated. Instead, Burke preferred playing video games or anything electronic or intellectually stimulating. He didn't fit in with his family and was often ignored because they could not relate to him. Sure, he and his dad shared a passion for planes and sailing but Burke's awkward behavior was still not preferred over JonBenet's lovable and energetic personality.

I think Burke convinced himself that if JonBenet were gone, his parents would have to give him all the attention. Autistic children are very detailed oriented and do not mind showing people how smart they are.

He didn't want to go on the Disney cruise. He want to stay in Charlevoix on the lake, which was his favorite place. When questioned by the police at the White's home, Burke still thought he would be going to the lake. That's how a mentally handicapped person would think. All you need to do is look at Burke's photographs. The majority of them expresses to me a kid that's in his own world.

Please take a moment to read this article discussing a new study about most murderers suffering from Asperger's:

Actually what you're suggesting is very close to a theory I developed fairly early after my first exposure to this case. Since all the evidence pointed away from an intruder, and since "the Ramseys" called the police first thing in the morning, which they would not have done if they'd been staging a kidnapping, it seemed that the only logical alternative was Burke. If he'd killed his sister then it would have made sense for him to write a phony "ransom" note to point both his parents and the authorities away from himself to some anonymous intruder.

I'd almost convinced myself that Burke had to be "the one." Until I read the ransom note. And I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that this note was the work of a nine year old. When this possibility was raised many years ago on one of the forums, someone posted the perfect retort: if Burke were that precocious we'd have heard of him long before we ever heard of JonBenet.

After reading the note, I was forced to change my mind, and found myself completely stymied. Until I saw an example of John's writing that reminded me of the writing on the note -- and suddenly realized that it was not "the Ramseys" who called the police -- but Patsy.

As a result, my logic shifted. There was no intruder. Burke was far too young to have written such a note. Patsy was the one who called 911, which the note writer would not have done. Leaving: John.

What you say about Burke and aspergers does make sense. There are many features of his personality that are consistent with high functioning autism. But that does not make him a killer.

How do you know that B watched movies all the time? How do you know he had/has aspergers? Asperger kids don't usually have friends, and it's been reported he had a number of friends in school. Just wondering, since mild autism or aspergers has been proposed but no one has seen his medical records.

The movies you reference are "R" rated movies. The parents would be guilty of poor parental oversight or even negligence if they allowed a 9 yr old to watch them independently. Unless John sat and watched them with Burke--thus providing John the vocabulary we read in the ransom note. I've read that Burke had graphomotor (handwriting) difficulties, so it would have been a very painstaking process for Burke to write this note. The handwriting in the note actually improves over time, and a person who struggles with fine motor handwriting skills would have handwriting that deteriorates over time I would think. I cannot image even a precocious child to use the phrase "and hence". Just can't see Burke as the author of the note.

"What you say about Burke and aspergers does make sense. There are many features of his personality that are consistent with high functioning autism. But that does not make him a killer."

No, certainly not. Combined with everything else, it could explain Burke's thought process. Someone who suffers from autism does not consider the emotional consequences of his actions. It would not have occurred to him how much pain he would be causing by eliminating JonBenet.D.S.

"The handwriting in the note actually improves over time, and a person who struggles with fine motor handwriting skills would have handwriting that deteriorates over time I would think."

The handwriting in the note isn't very neat until the end of the note. We don't know how much time it would have taken him to write it. He may have written a few sentences at a time. Who knows? If Burke was Autistic he would have been meticulous and most likely spent weeks planning the murder until he felt his plan was ready to put into action.

It would not have been out of the question for Burke to pick up on phrases like "and hence" from John or Patsy. Autistic children have amazing memories and usually have a sophisticated vocabulary. I knew a 10 year old child with Asperger's who wrote amazing poetry. There is no question in my mind that Burke could have written the ransom note by combining what he remembered from movies, parents, and other people. Besides, the handwriting from the scrapbook belongs to Burke and it matches the ransom note.D.S.

We come back to what, for me, is the bottom line: Eleven forensic pathologists and preminent child sexual abuse medicos, viewing slides, tissue samples and photographs, found evidence of chronic digital penetration. Statistically, John was far likelier than Burke to have been the abuser, and it stretches credulity to believe JBR would not have run screaming to her mother had her brother been the perpetrator - this went far beyond children playing doctor.CC

Statistics cannot be used to solve a crime with each case being unique. Additionally, statistics can be very misleading. I would think that chronic digital penetration without it eventually escalating to penile penetration points more toward an inexperienced young boy.D.S.

I'm not relying on statistics, just the evidence and common sense. Had Burke been digitally penetrating his six-year old sister, I believe she would have found that frightening and would have told, whereas if her father, whom she adored, told her it was a special kind of love, and a secret, she would not.CC

I agree with you, but it wasn’t simply statistics. Boulder Child Protection Services, several psychiatrists (one who was a long-time expert in incest and child abuse), and an analyst who studied J’s responses all believed he was responsible for molesting his daughter.

I would have to fully disagree with C.C. and I think most would on the point of if JBR was being penetrated by Burke she would be frightened. I dont know why or how you would come to such an odd conclusion. Burke is around JBRs age and kids play doctor and explore each other all the time. This is not uncommon whatsoever. Especially with us knowing that JBR used to go and sleep in Burke's room all the time. What WOULD BE very odd would be JR coming and climbing into JBRs bed in the middle of the night, a man around 40 yrs older than her wanting to play doctor etc etc.

Apparently, they were very worried. We know that Burke continued to see a psychiatrist for at least a year and a half after the murder. I would wager that treatment continued for a long time and possibly has not ended.D.S.

"Those with Asperger syndrome do not have significant delays or difficulties in language or cognitive development. Some even demonstrate precocious vocabulary – often in a highly specialized field of interest. They have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age. For example, the child may use the word 'beckon' instead of 'call' or the word 'return' instead of 'come back.' "D.S.

Burke may have been borderline autistic, but he was certainly no genius, with words or anything else. If his prose showed any signs that he was capable of writing such a note, his teachers would certainly have picked up on it.

The "Bonita Papers" mention that as a student "though intelligent, Burke had difficulty transferring his thoughts to paper". That doesn't address his speaking vocabulary, but I think does imply that written communication was challenging for him. I think writing the ransom note would definitely have been a challenge for him.

"Had Burke been digitally penetrating his six-year old sister, I believe she would have found that frightening and would have told, whereas if her father, whom she adored, told her it was a special kind of love, and a secret, she would not."

You make a good point. I think it's very possible that John and Patsy were told and they tried to handle this problem themselves. If that were the case, I could see why they felt responsible for this murder and decided to cover it up.D.S.

Surely if they "felt responsible for this murder and tried to cover it up" they would have done a better job coordinating their stories about the 911 call and the window? They had four months in which to practice speaking in concert, yet they did not. No, Doc is right - the differing stories point to one person's involvement and the other's innocence.CC

I can buy every aspect of the Burke did it theory as it all makes sense to me. However I do not think I can be convinced that a 9yr old wrote the RN or did the garotting. The fecal matter all over JBs room and the poopy pants that were Burkes are surely a possibility that something was amiss. It is possible that we have 2 different stories that we are entangling as 1.

What would be johns purpose of changeing her into diffrent clothes after she died? I thought they were able to locate the clothes pr put her to sleep in and no dna on them. No one is certain for sure that the plan was to take the body out of the house . So why add the suspicion of changeing her clothing . If he was planning on takeing the body out why would it matter to change her for? Had to cross his mind if he did dump the body somewhere and police found her wouldnt he think pr would of thought foubd that suspicious if she was found in changed clothes ... if she was found like that would of made jr look more suspicious

I've provided an answer already, which I'll be happy to repeat here. However, before I do, it's necessary to insert a point of clarification, because I've noticed lately that whenever I respond to questions of this sort I find myself accused of trying to "save my theory" by coming up with overly complicated and convoluted explanations, in a desperate effort to make the evidence fit my theory.

So before proceeding I want to make it clear that my theory of this case is based essentially on certain widely accepted facts and very simple and straightforward logical inferences from those facts. What I've written in the above blog post is a good example of that.

As for the rest, we see much evidence from which no clear logical inferences can be drawn, and we are thus forced to speculate. I'm always happy to speculate about such aspects of the case, but these are frankly speculations, based on what seems reasonable to me. They should in no way be seen as essential elements of my theory but simply attempts to demonstrate that such bits of evidence can be understood in such a way as to be consistent with my theory. Other interpretations are certainly possible in such cases, but usually there is no way we can say for sure what this sort of evidence really means.

Now as far as the oversize panties are concerned, what I've written on this topic is very frankly speculative, i.e., not based strictly on logical inference from facts. For one thing we have no way of knowing whether JonBenet was actually redressed by her attacker or whether she redressed herself prior to the attack. I seriously doubt the latter, because those panties would have been very uncomfortable, but we can't rule out that possibility.

IF she HAD been redressed by her attacker we need to consider why, and here we are free to speculate, based, of course, on what seems reasonable. Now it seems extremely unlikely that an intruder would have been the one to redress her, first because I can't think of any reason why he'd want to do that -- if some of his semen got on the original pair, he could just have put them in his pocket and taken them with him; and second, because it's hard to believe her attacker would have known where to look for her panties in the first place. Of course he could have had some motive we can't imagine, so we can't rule that out completely.

Considering the possibility that Patsy was the attacker, it's very hard to understand why she would want to redress her and if she did, it seems as though she would have known enough to chose a normal size pair, rather than the oversize pair.

This leaves John. So, again, assuming he redressed her we must ask ourselves why he would not have wanted her found in the original pair. The only reason I can think of is that he might have been afraid that some of his semen leaked onto the original pair. If that's the case, he would certainly have removed them. And if Patsy hadn't called 911, that would not have been a problem, because he could have gotten rid of them at the same time as dumping the body, on the following night (according to the plan I've outlined elsewhere).

Once Patsy called 911, however, that opportunity was gone. If panties with his semen on them had been found, then he'd have been exposed for sure, so he had to get rid of them. But how? So it's occurred to me that he could have run upstairs while Det. Arndt was distracted with the others in the sun room, desperately looked for other panties properly labeled "Wednesday," and, since he knew nothing about the oversize panties Patsy had purchased for an older girl, accidentally chose an oversized pair. A mother would have realized immediately that these were much too large, but a father who knew nothing about panties might well have not.

So, returning to the body in the basement, he could have redressed her in the oversize pair in an effort to redirect attention away from the tainted pair, which he could simply have tossed into the laundry hamper where it would, in all likelihood, go unnoticed.

Now this is speculative for sure, and there might be some other reason for why she'd been redressed. But for the life of me I can't think of one. So while this scenario admittedly sounds pretty far fetched, I do think it needs to be taken seriously. I certainly can't prove it happened that way, but I don't think we can rule it out as a possibility.

What about jr ex girlfriend the one that showed up on pr door step the one he cheated on his first wife with. The ransom note would kinda make sense for her to write it .for instance the note seems like it has a female touch, making it seem as if it was someone from his business as it states somethin like we dont like what ur business stands for,makes money the purpose to cover up the revenge , directed it towrds john, wanted to leave the body there to hurt pr and jr . Added the window last minute to make it look like an intruder. Chose jb because that woukd hurt them the most.

There's a long long list of possible suspects who've been named in this case, and each has his or her advocates. And for each, moreover, there is a "really good reason" to believe this "has to be the one." Now if this were your ordinary case of someone simply breaking into the house or entering with a key and assaulting the victim, then we'd have no way of knowing who, what, how or why, and there'd be plenty of reasonable doubt regarding the possible involvement of Patsy, John or Burke.

But it's not an ordinary case at all. If you scroll upward to the post at the top of this page you'll find a paragraph demonstrating the extreme unlikelihood of ANY intruder having committed this crime. That goes for every single one of the many possible suspects, including the ex-girlfriend.

Because of the block lettering AND the attempt to DISGUISE the handwriting in the note, some experts I've seen who speak on "disguised handwriting" say it's very difficult to determine with absolute certainty WHO the writer is. That's the case with THIS NON-ransom note.

So I repeat: why would an INTRUDER have so many SIMILARITIES to Patsy's handwriting? What are the ODDS that some stranger came in, hung around, carefully IMITATED PATSY'S HANDWRITING and LANGUAGE patterns, all while including INSIDE INFORMATION in the note? Then hid the note without folding it or crushing it while he hid himself until the family went to sleep?

Patsy LIVED there, it was HER PAD, HER PEN, HER LINGUISTICS, and SIMILARITIES TO HER HANDWRITING. How anyone can compare her exemplars and samples to the note and NOT see the truth I will NEVER understand.

Patsy had NO ALIBI. Her fibers were all over the crime scene. She evaded, misled, and lied to LE in the investigation of her own child's murder. When she did talk, she changed her story repeatedly or just "forgot" critical information, like what kind of bathroom training JonBenet had in her short life, what JonBenet ate that day, items in Patsy's own home that belonged to them, etc. She had to have TWO NON-LE, PRIVATE EXAMINERS SHE PAID FOR HERSELF to FINALLY pass a polygraph YEARS after the murder.

You have to look at ALL the evidence and consider its CUMULATIVE effect. Patsy was in this up to her neck. Koldkase

Hi Koldkase. You've done an excellent job of summarizing the case against Patsy, as accepted, probably, by the vast majority of those following the case, even today. What you'll find on this blog, or, more efficiently, in my book, is a summary of facts, evidence and reasoning that both refutes your reasoning and also explains why so many have been led so far astray by a long string of unsubstantiated assumptions.

That's a big part of what this blog is all about and if you take the time to read it, you'll see why. If you'd rather not take the time, than simply read the blog post at the top of this page to see an important chunk of the logic behind my conviction that Patsy was never involved and John alone both committed this crime and attempted to stage a kidnapping to cover it up.

If all were as cut and dried as you say, then Patsy would have been put on trial very early on, something Hunter would have been very happy to do if in fact he had any REAL evidence against her. In fact there was none.

The similarities you and so many others have found between Patsy's handwriting and the note are a perfect example of how people can so easily see what they want to, or expect to, see. It's an illusion. In fact Patsy's hand is totally different from that of the note, as I've demonstrated on this blog. John's writing is far closer, as I've also demonstrated here.

The sort of simple-minded letter by letter comparisons made by Cina Wong, for example, are the result of cherry picking to find examples that "work" and ignoring everything that doesn't. She was literally paid by Darnay Hoffmann to do exactly that. The same sort of cherry picking could be done when comparing the writing of a great many others to the note. A case in point are the similarly "convincing" comparisons that have been made between the note and Chris Wolf's writing. I wonder if you've ever seen that video. I posted a link to it on this blog, but unfortunately it's been taken down since then.

People see what they want to see or what they expect to see. And once John was "ruled out" then all expectations fixated on Patsy. It's almost as simple as that. I invite you to read further hear to learn more about the case and the many reasons why Patsy could not have been involved.

I have been reading and I respect the work that you have put together here. The fact and evidence can be interpreted in a great many ways and make for many viable theories in this case which is why it is so intriguing. I respectfully disagree with basing this whole case off of a logical inference (Patsy calling 911). Sure it makes sense, as do 10 other theories. If only it were that simple of a conclusion John would have been charged long ago as well. The problem is that there are enough clues and evidence to just about charge anyone in the house and then you have very slight IDI evidence to boot. If John had written the not e and did not want Patsy calling 911 he surely would have made more of an effort to be there when she found it and to not be up checking on Burke. Had Patsy been frightened by John's behavior that morning as some have said here and that would have been more than a clear indicator of John's guilt to PR. At the least the marriage would have ended eventually and probably much sooner than later. Had PR ever suspected John of molesting JBR prior to her demise that would have sent very clear and obvious bells off to PR and there is no way she would have let JR off the hook and slept next to him for the next 10 years. I started reading some comments debating the 911 call here and I have heard the clear version and was going to post it on here however the link is defunct now for some reason and I cant find another. I can tell you this for a fact though as it was loud and clear on 1 version that was available. After the call a young male says something close to "what did you find" and you can very clearly hear John in an agitated voice say back to him "we are not talking to you". I have looked for links elsewhere and have yet to find that cleaned up version but if I do I will surely post it here for you. Koldkase.

Thanks Koldkase, for spending time on this blog, and for respecting all the hard work I've put into it. I, in turn, respect all the hard work YOU have put into researching this case as well. And yes, you certainly have every right to question my interpretations of the facts and evidence.

However, I cannot agree that the case I've made against John, and in defense of Patsy, can be treated like the many other theories put forward over these many years. There IS a difference, and it lies with my method, which as far as I can tell is unique (as far as this case is concerned). First of all, I focus on known facts, as you know, and very straightforward and clear inferences based on those facts. What I see coming from you and so many others are not facts and logic but personal opinions, based all too often on assumptions. So please forgive me if I insist: there IS a difference.

"If only it were that simple of a conclusion John would have been charged long ago as well."

From what I learned several years ago, in a forum post by "New York Lawyer," Darnay Hoffman, the original theory held by the authorities was very close to mine, i.e., John did it and was manipulating Patsy. Which made sense since there was no sign of an intruder and the child had been sexually assaulted. According to some estimates, 99% of all sexual assaults are performed by males.

According to Darnay, all that changed as soon as the handwriting was examined and John was ruled out. For him, this was decisive -- since Patsy had not been ruled out, it was only logical to conclude that SHE must have written the note. And he then set out to "prove" that. For the investigators, it was a devastating setback, turning what looked like an open and shut case into an intractable mystery, and prompting the mother of all wild goose chases, which continues to this day. Of course, no one considered the possibility that the decision to rule John out could have been a mistake.

Here's where my method comes in -- because there is a world of difference between an opinion -- regardless of how "expert" it might be -- and a fact. And when we think about it dispassionately we realize that there is no good reason to rule out THE leading suspect simply because the exemplars he's provided don't appear to match the writing on a note obviously intended to deceive. As Lin Wood himself argued (see above) "the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review."

"If John had written the not e and did not want Patsy calling 911 he surely would have made more of an effort to be there when she found it and to not be up checking on Burke."

These are assumptions, based on reports offered by the suspects. You assume they are factual, but there is no reason to make such an assumption. In fact, we have no reason to believe any aspect of their story, as we've already seen contradictory reports regarding the decision to make that call. We don't know who found the note or where it was found, we don't know what was said after the note was found, we don't know if they argued about what to do, and we certainly can't be sure that John could have prevented Patsy from making that call if she felt it necessary to do so.

"Had Patsy been frightened by John's behavior that morning as some have said here and that would have been more than a clear indicator of John's guilt to PR. At the least the marriage would have ended eventually and probably much sooner than later."

Another assumption. Again, we don't know what went on between them that morning, or why Patsy decided to call 911. If, as I've speculated, she might have been afraid of him at that moment, this does not mean she saw him as a suspect. There's a big difference between a gut reaction and a carefully though out deduction.

And besides, that was pure spec. on my part. She might have had some other reason for making that call. What she said was that she didn't really think rationally about it, but acted on instinct, which I find perfectly believable.

I can not debate with you because it is an opinion what is fact and what is not. I see exactly what you are doing and it is basically what you can see, hear or prove yourself as fact or not fact. You could miss out on the best evidence by deciding it is NOT a fact because you yourself can not personally prove it as fact. For me personally take most everything that comes out of LE or firsthand accounts as factual unless I find reason not to. You do not and are saying lets just go by these certain things that we personally know are facts because we can see and hear them ourselves. I am not going to try and sway you from your thinking, if you were a mathemetician you would be a brilliant 1 ! I just think that if you used that method on all cases you would miss ALOT of evidence. Some cases are built strictly on what you may not consider factual. You may search for a smoking gun where there is none. That being said you have done a great job investigating and you may be right about this case. My very first thought when I saw it run across my tv screen was the father was molesting her then killed her. I personally find this case about as complex as a case can possibly get. LE getting evidence enough to prosecute 1 person when there are 3 people in the house all with circumstantial evidence against them plus possible intruder evidence puts LE in a real bind as they can not prosecute everyone. More than any case in history it all depends on 1s perception.

"I can not debate with you because it is an opinion what is fact and what is not. I see exactly what you are doing and it is basically what you can see, hear or prove yourself as fact or not fact. You could miss out on the best evidence by deciding it is NOT a fact because you yourself can not personally prove it as fact."

No, it's NOT an opinion. What I've defined as a fact, as far as this case is concerned, is something agreed on by everyone. The note was written on a notepad found in the house: fact - no one disputes this. The note was a ransom note: fact - no one disputes that either. Patsy is the one who called 911: fact -- a matter of public record.

I haven't missed out on any evidence of which I'm aware because I've considered all the evidence, whether it's factual or not. And if I left anything out originally, I've been made aware of it by people such as yourself, posting here.

While there are certainly other facts to be considered, the ones I've concentrated on are all that's needed to identify the criminal as John Ramsey. I've found no facts inconsistent with that finding and no one posting here has ever presented any fact that could not be understood as consistent with my analysis.

What I usually from most people following this case are not facts but assumptions -- such as the assumption that John told Patsy to make the call, or that Patsy's handwriting is "just like" that on the note. Etc. When we concentrate on certain key facts, then, as I see it, all the various elements of the case come together to form a very clear picture of who did what. As to "why," there are no facts that tell us why, but there IS plenty of evidence helping us figure that out as well.

Yes, I have heard it as well. I do not have a copy of my own but I was able to listen to one at a presentation in 1998. There is no doubt as to what is being said in the background. Anyone who has independently listened to the tape before knowing what was said has reported to hear the same words. I think that John and Patsy were afraid of what Burke might have heard during the night or that morning and decided it was best to take total control of the situation by removing Burke from the equation.

I'm calling BS on this supposed 911 tape where Burke and John say incredibly incriminating things. So many people have heard it yet it's not on the internet at all. I would love to be wrong about this, but I just cannot take its existence at face value.

You are free to call it BS or whatever you would like Zack. I heard it loud and clear many times years ago with my own ears via headphones and that is all that matters. I have looked everywhere and it has been taken down off of the internet like a great many things from this case. The only thing I was/am not sure about is what the young male is saying. It sounds like "what did you find" however it is not as loud and clear as JR's voice and misinterpretation is possible. As far as incriminating I am not sure that it really helps in that way at all other than the R's lying about Burke being awake. The 1 thing that I 1 very obvious thing that I took out of it was that JR is very upset and the young male has kind of a clueless tone of voice. Koldkase

Actually a recording of the call IS available on youtube, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFMrNtTPaSY

I've listened to recordings of the call many times, enhancing it in various ways using very powerful audio editing software, and I've never heard anything close to what Steve Thomas reported -- nothing remotely resembling either Burke or John. What I hear is what is known as "crosstalk," a purely technical artifact. It's well known that certain types of noise can be interpreted as voices, especially when one has programmed oneself to hear a preconceived text. You can even hear messages in recordings played in reverse, a well known phenomenon.

Try this experiment. Listen to a ticking clock and see if you can get it to "talk" to you. All you really need is to think ahead of time what you want it to "say" and in many cases you'll hear it saying that exact same thing. It works for me, and I find that effect fascinating. It's an illusion, nothing more.

I have spent a couple of hours the past few days looking for the version I am speaking of just so that I could post it for you on here. I found 3 or 4 on youtube alone and a few others elsewhere. The version I am speaking of (cleaned up by aerospace maybe?) there leaves NO doubt. It has been taken down for some reason but there is no chance of mistaking for crosstalk whatsoever. You WILL here it loud and clear the very first time that you listen to it. You will be able to tell the tone of voice and attitude coming from Burke and John. There is no possible way of mistaking what John says as it is loud and very clear. Everyone is listening to the wrong versions because they are all that is available and trying to hear something that is not there, but make no mistake when you do get to hear it you will be shocked at how clear it is. If nothing else I think that this might give your theory a slight bolster as John sounds a bit angry. Until then I will keep digging and try to refind it. Koldkase

Couldn't Burke have overheard them discussing having found a note, and said "what did you find?" And isn't it possible that a distraught parent might say "we are not talking to you?" Rude, yes. But John could have already been agitated. Possibly, he was agitated that Patsy had already called 911. So, assuming Burke was awake, and they sent him back to his room and made him be quiet, I still don't see how that adds up to definite proof that both Patsy and John were involved, and further, involved in a coverup of something Burke did.

If JDI, then of course he wants Burke out of the equation. Doc's theory is that he needed Patsy and Burke BOTH out of the equation, and wanted them both to leave the house that morning (he could have planned to tell them it was for their safety.)

All of these things are speculation, but the real piece of evidence that allows one to start connecting dots is that of sexual abuse. Why must we reject the assumption that an adult male, a father, is incapable of incest? John being ruled out is what make this the crime of the century. Once you accept that fathers do molest their daughters, everything fits into place. Patsy was in a loveless marriage, according to some. They may not have even been sleeping together. She knew that ovarian cancer is a death sentence; every woman knows that. Remission was just buying her time on this earth. Her husband was a jerk and he wasn't getting any. He fooled his first wife with his long affair, but his trips to Amsterdam weren't enough to satisfy him in this 2nd marriage, and Pastsy wasn't putting out. While Patsy was traveling back east for cancer treatments, John's urges got the best of him. HE was the one tempted by her prettiness and precocious little outfits. He crossed the line. He realized he crossed the line and got desperate enough that he had to silence her for good. He KNEW Patsy would make sure he went to jail for a long time if she caught him. He did what he felt he had to do. He was bitter about Patsy being sick and knew she would die within 5 years. He worked it out in his mind that JBR and Patsy would be together in heaven forever and no one would ever know about his screwed up sexual deeds. The crime scene is remarkable evidence of a plan gone bad. I don't think Patsy could have come up with such a plan, would have gone along with such a plan, and dang sure could not have executed such a plan on her own. I have heard no reasons, ever, for ruling John out. Because there are not any reasons to rule John out. Its that simple!

"I've listened to recordings of the call many times, enhancing it in various ways using very powerful audio editing software, and I've never heard anything close to what Steve Thomas reported -- nothing remotely resembling either Burke or John. What I hear is what is known as 'crosstalk,' a purely technical artifact."

Doc, what you are listening to not the same enhancement that was provided by the aerospace technicians. If you heard it, I'm sure your opinion would be different.

"It's well known that certain types of noise can be interpreted as voices, especially when one has programmed oneself to hear a preconceived text."

Why that may be true, that does not apply to this case. According to Kolar:

"Several technicians listened to the enhanced version of the tape and compared notes on what they thought they had heard. Each technician reportedly had heard the same conversation. It was time to call Boulder authorities.

"They all stared in amazement. Everyone who had listened to the enhanced version of the 911 tape had independently identified the same words and gender of the people speaking them."

For many years I was actively involved in composing and processing electronic audio. I've worked intensively in electronic music studios in both the US and Europe, and more recently with computer-based electronic music, as both a composer and teacher. I'm familiar with a wide variety of audio components including just about every type of filter and noise reduction technology.

When evaluating the recording in question using various methods, I could find no trace of anything sounding remotely like human voices, other than those of Patsy and the 911 operator. If you and Koldkase heard such voices then it seems likely you were either hearing what you expected to hear, or, more likely, victims of a hoax.

I don't know what sort of "enhancement" technology the folks at NASA were using, but it's hard to believe they could have pulled anything out of that recording that I wasn't able to hear using even the most sensitive noise reduction techniques.

Regarding the claims made by Thomas and Kolar, I'm reminded of the notorious Aisenberg case, where similar claims involving barely audible recordings were made by government officials, convincing them that the Aisenberg's implicated themselves while their house was being bugged. See the following online article for details:

"Some audio experts believe that listeners will hear whatever they are reading or what they are told to hear, no matter if it is really on the tapes. It's sometimes refered to as the McGurk effect, named after Harry McGurk, a Scottish-born psychologist.

"I would never have heard it unless I was told what to hear," said Grossman, 22. "It seems like whatever you are told to hear, you will end up hearing."

Aerospace Corporation AnalysisAnalysis Requested by BPD. At the request of BPD, Aerospace Corporation, which reportedly had more advanced equipment for such analysis, conducted a test of the 911 tape. According to Internet poster Jayelles, Aerospace works free of charge for law enforcement agencies. The official report from Aerospace was given to BPD in May 1997, but has never been released to the public.No Comment by Aerospace. On August 21, 1998, it was reported "Robert Pentz, director of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center for the Western Region, operated by Aerospace Corp. for the National Institute of Justice, said the company had no comment on the tape. "Even though we acknowledge the fact we do work for law enforcement agencies ... it is a matter of policy we don't comment on cases that are open without written permission of the affected law enforcement agency," Pentz said."Aerospace Stands Behind its Work. However, in 2003, according to the National Enquirer (see below), in response to claims that two firms hired by NBC to analyze the tape had found no evidence of Burke's voice, "the renowned high-tech company that enhanced the tape for the Boulder police says its original findings that Burke's voice is on the tape is correct. We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer. The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide. "We are top shelf," said Brill.Leaked Aerospace FindingsNational Enquirer (1998). The National Enquirer leaked the Aerospace findings in a world exclusive appearing in its September 1, 1998 issue. In a later article written by Don Gentile appearing in July 2003, the following was leaked (transcribed by Internet poster Rickamorti of Purg and posted with permission by Internet poster LurkerXIV):"Boulder Detective Melissa Hickman took the tape to the Aerospace Corporation for enhancement. There, experts enhanced the tape. At first they heard Patsy saying "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," and Burke saying, "Please, what do I do?" according to a source.""After further analysis, they heard three distinct voices, then gave the enhanced recording to Det. Hickman. "Hickman heard John Ramsey say, "We're not speaking to you," in what sounded like a very angry voice," the source said. "Patsy then says, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus," and finally Burke is clearly heard to say "Well what did you find?" with an emphasis on the word "did."When the original leak appeared in 1998, the Boulder Daily Camera reported: "The general content of the transcript in the supermarket tabloid is accurate, according to sources familiar with the investigation."But the same article also reported: "Spokeswomen for the Boulder police and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office would not comment on the 911 tape from Dec. 26, 1996."Lawrence Schiller Book (1999). A slightly different version of this conversation is reported in a review by the Boston Globe: ``[Boulder Police Detective Melissa] Hickman listened to the tape and wrote down what she heard." 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice. Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother." 'Please, what do I do?' Burke said." 'We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say." Patsy screamed again. 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.'" And then, more clearly, Burke said, 'What did you find?' "Steve Thomas Book (2000). The purported Aerospace findings also were leaked by Steve Thomas in his book and another book by Henry Lee (2001)

"For a few tantalizing seconds, police heard background sounds that they could not understand. Detectives sent this tape out to the best electronic experts in the region and, still, save for Patsy Ramsey's sobbing and prayers, nothing more could be made out of the background noise. Then the police discovered a new and expert electronics company, Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California, that they provided with a copy of the tape. What came back was worth all of this trouble. When these sounds were brought up many times over, police heard Burke and John Ramsey in an exchange. The child said, "Please, what do I do?" To this John Ramsey replied, "We are not speaking to you." Finally, Burke is heard to ask, "What did you find?"Steve Thomas Chat Session (2000). The following is an excerpt from a November 14, 2000 chat session with Steve Thomas: crimeADM: "Did you hear the 911 tape personally; and if so, once and for all, was Burke on it?" stevethomas: "I heard the 911 tape. repeatedly, as did the other detectives. the consensus was unanimous, as supported by the enhancement -- there is a 3rd voice on the tape, appears to be Burke (unless there was someone else present who has never been identified...)"Bonita Papers. A 5-paragraph section of the Bonita Papers provides even further detail which confirms the wording of the additional conversations as stated in the Thomas book. Note that the reliability of the Bonita Papers has been called in question

Leaked Aerospace FindingsNational Enquirer (1998). The National Enquirer leaked the Aerospace findings in a world exclusive appearing in its September 1, 1998 issue. In a later article written by Don Gentile appearing in July 2003, the following was leaked (transcribed by Internet poster Rickamorti of Purg and posted with permission by Internet poster LurkerXIV):"Boulder Detective Melissa Hickman took the tape to the Aerospace Corporation for enhancement. There, experts enhanced the tape. At first they heard Patsy saying "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," and Burke saying, "Please, what do I do?" according to a source.""After further analysis, they heard three distinct voices, then gave the enhanced recording to Det. Hickman. "Hickman heard John Ramsey say, "We're not speaking to you," in what sounded like a very angry voice," the source said. "Patsy then says, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus," and finally Burke is clearly heard to say "Well what did you find?" with an emphasis on the word "did."When the original leak appeared in 1998, the Boulder Daily Camera reported: "The general content of the transcript in the supermarket tabloid is accurate, according to sources familiar with the investigation."But the same article also reported: "Spokeswomen for the Boulder police and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office would not comment on the 911 tape from Dec. 26, 1996."Lawrence Schiller Book (1999). A slightly different version of this conversation is reported in a review by the Boston Globe: ``[Boulder Police Detective Melissa] Hickman listened to the tape and wrote down what she heard." 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice. Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother." 'Please, what do I do?' Burke said." 'We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say." Patsy screamed again. 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.'" And then, more clearly, Burke said, 'What did you find?' "

No Comment by Aerospace. On August 21, 1998, it was reported "Robert Pentz, director of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center for the Western Region, operated by Aerospace Corp. for the National Institute of Justice, said the company had no comment on the tape. "Even though we acknowledge the fact we do work for law enforcement agencies ... it is a matter of policy we don't comment on cases that are open without written permission of the affected law enforcement agency," Pentz said."Aerospace Stands Behind its Work. However, in 2003, according to the National Enquirer (see below), in response to claims that two firms hired by NBC to analyze the tape had found no evidence of Burke's voice, "the renowned high-tech company that enhanced the tape for the Boulder police says its original findings that Burke's voice is on the tape is correct. We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer. The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide. "We are top shelf," said Brill.

I stumbled upon this site while looking for the version I heard years ago. Doc I have no idea what the folks at aerospace use/used because this is not my area of expertise. I will guess that it is better/maybe has a different area of technical use than what you use ? I have heard it and I can assure yoy WITHOUT A DOUBT that this is not a case of hearing what you are told to hear. This is pretty clear. I had never before read about JR being angry in the background yet I posted it above BEFORE I found this site. I know that you only believe if you see and hear it yourself but I stake my life I heard it loud and clear without even knowing what was supposedly said. I guarantee that WHEN you do hear the recording that you will hear it loud and clear the first time. Koldkase

I'm sorry, folks but especially in the light of what we've learned from the Aisenberg case, I find it very difficult to accept that some sort of "enhanced" version of this recording exists that contains voices so obviously absent from the version made public.

What I'm hearing now regarding the Aerospace results is all too similar to what we've seen in the Aisenberg case, where the "authorities" supposedly in a position to know continually insisted they could hear things that no one else could hear -- including the judge, thankfully. The situation is really rather eerily similar. People from law enforcement hear, very clearly, what they want to hear, yet when the result is made public, no one else can hear it.

I'm also extremely skeptical regarding the reasons why the supposedly "enhanced" tape is no longer available. If it contains what they claim it contains, then why hasn't it been made public for all to hear? Sorry, but I smell wishful thinking on the part of the people at both Aerospace and the BPD -- enhanced, apparently, by some kind of hoax. If it wasn't a hoax I see no reason for suppressing it.

If anyone wants to prove me wrong, then fine. Let's hear the "enhanced" version. Until I have a chance to hear it, I'm sorry but I'll remain a skeptic.

Hercule and Koldkase: my guess is that what you heard may well have been a version of the tape deliberately doctored to "help" listeners hear what someone thinks they hear in the version currently available. This is the sort of thing students of rock art will do -- add lines to an image too faint to be seen very clearly in a photo.

I can't imagine why this dramatically "enhanced" recording would not have been made available, especially after the unenhanced version was heard so widely on the media.

Melissa Hickman flew to LA to meet with Mike Epstein and Jim Roder, ENGINEERS at Aerospace. Recordings were copied onto the JAZ drive, a large disk with more memory than a standard floppy disk. Both engineers had heard three distinct voices on the tape and written down what they thought was being said. The tape was then played for Hickman. After listening to the tape 3 or 4 times, Hickman heard heard John Ramsey say, "We're not speaking to you". In what sounded like a very angry voice, Patsy then says, "Help me Jesus,help me Jesus". And finally Burke is clearly heard to say, "Well, what DID you find?" with an emphasis on the word "did". After Hickman told the engineers her impression of the conversation, Roeder handed her a piece of notepaper containing the conversation heard by himself and his fellow engineer. The conversation as WRITTEN down was exactly as Hickman herself had just heard.

One thing you should take into consideration, Biz, is that Det. Hickman was pretty familiar with the Ramsey's voices at this stage of the investigation and could most assuredly have recognized all three voices heard.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.